Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARRY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to say "Object" if there is a Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir W. Bromley Davenport: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is a Motion on the Order Paper, the hon. Gentleman need not indulge in the luxury of saying "Object".

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

HAVERING CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

PORT OF TYNE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Mr. Speaker: There is no need to say "object" when there is a Motion on the Order Paper.

SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TORBAY HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TORBAY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

WILLIAMS & GLYN'S BANK BILL (By Order)

Read' a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is it not obvious that, apart from the merits of these Private Bills, many of the objections are of a frivolous character? What is the purpose of all the preparations by legal people and those associated with municipal corporations and other business concerns if the House is to treat these matters in this frivolous manner?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but it is the right of an hon. Member to insist on a Second Reading being debated in the House.

Sir K. Joseph: On a point of order. Why have you sympathy for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), Mr. Speaker, since my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), or any other hon. Member who uses this right, is only preserving the right of the public for full discussion of any Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is a clearer repetition of what I said rather clumsily.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I wonder whether you could use your discretion, Mr. Speaker, about people rising to points of order who are now in their senility.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure to which side of the House the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. Should it not be made clear that any hon. Member who objects to these Bills is not necessarily objecting to the Bill but is objecting to its getting a Second Reading without debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I have said, only a little more concisely.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Hall-marking

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to announce the result of his inquiries about reform of the law relating to hall-marking of gold and silver wares.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state his decision on the future of hall-marking.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): We are satisfied that reform of the law should be based on compulsory hall-marking of gold, silver and platinum wares, with limited exemptions. Extensive consultations on the complex details will be required before we can propose legislation.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Lady aware that her statement about the retention of compulsory hall-marking is welcome as far as it goes? But is she further aware that reform of the law in other respects is becoming urgent? Can she say when legislation will come forward?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The retention of compulsory hall-marking will be of use not only to the consumer, but to the industry as a whole. We are discussing points of detail with the industry and I do not think that we can estimate how long this will take, since they are so complex. It would be better to take sufficient time to get the right answers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that her statement will be generally welcomed? Will she also agree that the hall-marking system is indisputably the best protection for the public?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The system has survived for hundreds of years, which seems to indicate that it is a satisfactory one. There are still problems and I would not like it supposed that this is something which does not need looking at from time to time. It is still possible to mislead with hall-marking as well as to assist.

Mrs. Knight: Can the hon. Lady give any hint of the type of goods she classifies as the limited exceptions?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Detailed discussions are going on and I can give only a broad indication to the hon. Lady. There are still some things to be settled, like the treatment of articles in which precious metal is combined with other components. It is a very involved subject.

Invisible Exports

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the result of his recent meeting with the committee on invisible exports.

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take on the recommendations contained in the report, "Britain's Invisible Earnings", published in October, 1967; and if he will make a statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The meeting gave me an opportunity to explain the increased attention which the Board of Trade will be giving to the promotion of exports of services. Action has already been taken on many of the recommendations and consideration is being given to a number of others.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the net contribution of private invisible earnings to the balance of payments is running at the moment at twice the rate of the favourable balance of payments as a whole? In his capacity as Minister responsible for invisible exports, will he lend the greatest weight, in the consultations he will be having with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly to the recent paper put to him by the Committee on Invisible Exports about the tax burden?

Mr. Mason: I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is right that the Committee should ask me to submit the paper on taxation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that the Committee will be submitting one on the selective employment tax. Invisibles are running at a favourable balance of an average of £40 million a month.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to congratulate the earners of these exports on their magnificent achievement despite the crippling restrictions of the Government?

Mr. Mason: Despite the restrictions to which the hon. Gentleman refers, they are doing extremely well and I did congratulate them when I was at the Committee.

Export Prices

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the rise of United Kingdom export prices in 1969 compared with those of the United Kingdom's major industrial competitors, from information available from international sources.

Mr. Mason: Between the last quarter of 1968 and the third quarter of 1969, United Kingdom export prices rose by 1½ per cent. and those of our main competitors by about 4 per cent. on average.

Mr. Sheldon: Does not this prove that the increases in prices in this country are not our prerogative but part of a worldwide movement against which we seem to be doing rather well?

Mr. Mason: We are doing well in spite of the slight increase in prices there has been.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to the further increase in steel prices announced yesterday, which, for example, has raised the average price of motor cars by a further £8 after the average increase of £12 a few months ago, making a total increase of £20 at an average per car, all of which renders a major industry increasingly uncompetitive abroad?

Mr. Mason: That is not related to the Question on the Order Paper and what I quoted. United Kingdom export prices rose a further 1 per cent. between the third quarter of 1969 and the end of last November, owing mainly to world prices for metals used in manufacturing having risen.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of staff employed by his Department before


and after the 1969 reorganisation, respectively.

Mr. Mason: The number was 18,354 before and 16,275 after the changes in Departmental responsibility announced in October.

Mr. Lane: Do these figures represent a reduction of staff which is proportionately more than or less than or about the same as the reduction in responsibilities?

Mr. Mason: The responsibility of Ministers has increased since the 2,000 civil servants left the Department; we also lost a Minister of State.

Agriculture and Horticulture (Bilateral Trade Agreements)

Mr. John Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult with the National Farmers' Union and with the National Farmers' Union horticultural sections before any further bilateral trade agreements are negotiated with Eastern European countries.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Board of Trade consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before inter-Governmental negotiations affecting agricultural and horticultural interests take place. The Ministry are in close touch with the National Farmers' Union who are able to express their views at any time. I see no reason to change these arrangements.

Mr. Wells: Can we not have definite formal negotiations with the N.F.U., since bilateral trade agreement negotiations usually take place only once a year, normally in March and April? Surely a little formal consultation between the Department and the farmers' interests would improve the good will or perhaps lessen the bad will there is at present between the Department and the farmers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Some of the bad will, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, which exists between the farmers and my Department has been artificially engendered through, in many cases, hon. Members opposite, who have chosen not to give accurate information about the position of the Board of Trade.

Mr. John Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has con-

cluded an agreement with Romania exchanging approximately £30 million worth of horticultural imports with irrigation equipment exports, in view of the effect of these exports on British horticultural interests.

Mr. Body: asked the President of the Board of Trade what effect the recent agricultural trade deal with Romania is expected to have on imports to the United Kingdom of horticultural products from that country.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: These contracts were entered into by private British firms and were not inter-Governmental agreements. The bulk of the foodstuffs concerned consists of non-horticultural products. In so far as horticultural products are involved, some of them may already be imported without quantitative restriction; the others may be imported into the United Kingdom only within the quotas for these products in force at the time.

Mr. Wells: Two questions arise. First, the quotas go up every year and, therefore, if the irrigation equipment is sold, there will still be more goods to compete with us. Surely the hon. Lady must take note of that. Secondly, the hon. Lady says that this was negotiated by private firms. Do not the Government have some surveillance of these negotiations?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Government should consult interested parties like the N.F.U. about arrangements to which they are not a party? If he is, it represents an extraordinary break with commercial tradition. The Ministry of Agriculture is in close touch with the N.F.U. and is well aware of its views.

Mr. Body: Is the hon. Lady aware that, of the list of the horticultural commodities imported from Romania, according to the Board of Trade Journal, quotas for 10 out of the 15 categories have been sharply increased and this is causing real concern to growers and may also cause concern to the British taxpayers, who are financing the Horticulture Improvement Scheme?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested to learn that peaches, melons, grapes and aubergines constitute a menace to the horticulture of Holland-with-Boston.
There is in many cases a totally artificial campaign. We are a trading country. We enter into agreements on a world trade basis and we are perfectly capable of looking after the interests of our home producers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in the North of England are pleased that they are able to export plant and equipment to Romania to enable the Romanians to earn the currency to buy these goods? People in the North are glad to have this employment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Hon. Members opposite normally congratulate us when we obtain large export orders in engineering. This is a very large order for irrigation equipment which will be of enormous benefit not only to our industries supplying the goods, but to those who will be providing the services.

Fruit Crops (Import Substitution)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade having regard to large English fruit crops in 1969, what steps he is taking in 1970 to protect growers in the Vale of Evesham and elsewhere against the consequences of foreign, notably West European, dumped imports, and to support a policy of import substitution.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Growers have the protection of the tariff and, for apples and pears, of import quotas. They also receive financial and other help to enable them to compete more effectively with imports. The Board of Trade will consider promptly any antidumping application by the industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: How does the hon. Lady account for the fact that every branch of the N.F.U. in every horticultural area of Britain unanimously condemns the Board of Trade for the fact that, during 1969, foreign horticultural produce has been dumped here in excessive quantities at artificially low prices, generally subsidised by the country of origin, which is destroying the British growers' market? What does she intend to do about it?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe the good old

load of British rubbish that he peddles around in Pershore Market? He has the means of coming to us and pointing out those horticultural products which have been dumped. There has been not one application to us to use the new powers we have had since the Amendment to the anti-dumping laws for horticultural products was made in 1968. If he has evidence that we are allowing dumped goods into the country, it is time he did something about it himself.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the official Opposition spokesman on these matters last weekend deplored Government intervention in industry? How does this square with the interventions made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Is she further aware that this House and the housewives are getting thoroughly tired of the enmity displayed by the hon. Gentleman against the interests of the housewives?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for those remarks, because it is noticeable that those who frequently talk about increased prices for the farmers do not point out that this would mean increased prices to the housewife. I should like to know whether this is the general policy which the party opposite wants to follow.

Sir K. Joseph: Is the hon. Lady aware that it is, in our view, the Government's basic job to protect all suppliers in this country, be they agricultural or manufacturing, against unfair competition and dumping? That is what is at issue behind the Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).

Mrs. Dunwoody: In that case, as I have pointed out not only to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South but also to the right hon. Gentleman, since the amendment to the anti-dumping legislation went through, hon. Members opposite have had at their disposal a means of bringing an anti-dumping case. We will take action as soon as we have prima facie evidence, but it is not something that hon. Members opposite have chosen to do.

European Free Trade Association

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on his consultations during December 1969 on all trade matters, and Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community, with the countries of the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Mason: There have been no further consultations at Ministerial level since the E.F.T.A. meeting in Geneva in November attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and myself but there have been discussions on trade questions and on the enlargement of the European Economic Community at the regular weekly meetings of the E.F.T.A. Council at official level. In addition, I visited Helsinki in December and discussed these matters with Finnish Ministers.

Sir G. Nabarro: Which version of the discussions between the Government and the E.E.C. does the right hon. Gentleman impart to the E.F.T.A. countries—the version of what is said in Brussels, the version of what is said in this House, or the version of the Prime Minister's consultations in Washington, as each of these versions is contradictory and different?

Mr. Mason: We do not indulge in the buffoonery of the hon. Member. The version is that of truth and honesty.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, if these negotiations are successful, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) will not be able to put down Questions like No. 11, because other countries will be able to dump all the food they want on us then?

Companies Act,1967

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the intention of Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1967, is being nullified in many cases by failure of directors to differentiate between the various classes of businesses of their companies, he will now introduce legislation to clarify how these differences should be recognised.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I will consider this suggestion when the time comes to prepare further companies legislation.

Mr. Jenkins: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is very necessary, because it is not much use having the legislation on the Statute Book unless there is some means of enforcing it? Whenever I have drawn a case to the attention of my right hon. Friend he has required that firm to carry out the provisions of the Act as in the case of Slater Walker and, now that I have pointed out the case of Metal Box this afternoon, no doubt he will be required to do this. Have I to go through the entire company list, one by one to get the law carried out? Should not more effective action be taken?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing information to the attention of the Board of Trade. I would point out that although the Monopolies Commission recommendation could be appropriate to conglomerates, it could also mean that we might get less information about companies with less clearly diversified activities. It is something which we want to examine first, not just leap forward.

Property Bonds

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to bring property bonds within the scope of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for bringing property bonds within the scope of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Acts.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Board of Trade is discussing this matter with interested bodies.

Mr. Baker: Is it not about time that the sales of property bonds were subject to the same rules affecting the sales of unit trusts and ordinary shares on the Stock Exchange? Is the hon. Lady aware that many people feel that small investors are not protected on such issues as the valuation of the underlying properties, their basis of valuation, management


charges and gearing? As this is an important matter, can we expect action quickly?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are some aspects of property bonds that need examining, and we are examining them. Nevertheless, the sort of legislation that already exists might not necessarily meet the points he has in mind. We are consulting now with the Associated Scottish Life Offices and the Life Offices Association and are hopeful that this will produce useful information.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is an area where the entire City believes that it is appropriate for the Government to intervene to prevent fraud? Why is she being so slow to intervene when it is the Government's job and yet so quick to intervene when it is not?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I will accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman, that it is rare that the City gives wholehearted agreement to Government intervention. What I would add is that we are getting on with this right now but we must take time to talk to the people concerned. If we came to this House with legislation which had not been agreed on the right basis, he would be the first person to complain.

Inertia Selling

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement about his policy with regard to legislation in respect of inertia selling.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I look forward to the debate on my hon. Friend's Bill next Friday, which will enable us thoroughly to explore the possibilities of useful action in this field.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the excellent Bill which is before the House, and as I am a considerably interested party, is the hon. Lady aware that I await, with no lack of interest her remarks on Friday?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The whole problem of inertia selling is one which concerns many consumers. I am sure that we will have a useful debate.

B.O.A.C. Scheduled Flights (North Atlantic Route)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the frequency in 1969 of British Overseas Airways Corporation scheduled flights on the North Atlantic route between the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The published timetables in the ABC World Airways Guide, a copy of which is in the Library, show that the weekly passenger services frequencies in each direction were 48 last winter, 71 in the summer and 54 this winter. There were nine weekly all-cargo flights throughout the year.

Mr. Fortescue: Does not the Minister find these figures disappointingly small, especially in view of the fact that yet another American airline has just been licensed on the North Atlantic? When does he plan to introduce the recommendation of the Edwards Committee, that a further British operator should be licensed on the Atlantic, preferably an independent?

Mr. Roberts: The White Paper on the Edwards Report has been published and the Government are moving towards drafting their proposals. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question I would say that we now command 25 per cent, of the frequencies across the transatlantic route, and we are in discussion with the United States Government about increasing this.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great increase in scheduled services being introduced this year by B.O.A.C., to many places in the United States by direct flights, including one to match the new American carrier mentioned by the hon. Gentleman? Would this not help to increase the share that B.O.A.C. already holds?

Mr. Roberts: It may well be the case and this will form part of the discussions that we are having with the Americans.

Mr. Corfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressures from scheduled operators, particularly in America, to restrict charter operations to protect scheduled operators with large capacity aircraft?

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of this attitude and it is one reason why we are having negotiations.

Service Industries (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has made of the increase in invisible earnings to be achieved by the granting of selective employment tax rebate to the service industries which are direct earners of foreign currency.

Mr. Mason: This question will no doubt be considered by Professor Reddaway in his study of the effects of S.E.T.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Until such studies are completed is it not a fact that people in this country who are held down by higher taxes and higher prices as a result of devaluation should resent the Government casting away the advantages of devaluation by imposing a surcharge on invisible exports?

Mr. Mason: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we have not yet received any convincing evidence that S.E.T. is adversely affecting invisible exports.

Mr. Maudling: Surely S.E.T. has increased the costs of those earning invisible exports and this must make it more difficult. The Minister is too complacent. It is no good saying that these people are doing well despite it—they would do better if the tax was taken off.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware why we introduced it—the service industries seemed to be under-taxed compared with manufacturing industries. It has been imposed and in spite of that it—[interruption.]—does not seem to have adversely affected the performance of these industries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The amplification operator must see that we do not get these spontaneous interruptions. They are not interventions by hon. Members.

National Exhibition Centre

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now considered the proposals submitted to him for the siting of a national exhibition

centre; what conclusions he has reached; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make an announcement about the national exhibition centre.

Mr. Speed: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the proposed size, date of commencement of building, and location of the national exhibition centre.

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the siting of a national exhibition centre.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent consideration he has given to the siting of the national exhibition centre; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: I have decided that the proposal by the Birmingham City Council and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry offers the best possibility of a viable development within a reasonable time scale, giving at the same time substantial and continuing interest by representatives of both industry and commerce and of local interests. I am therefore today giving the Birmingham Council and Chamber the firm assurances of support they require before proceeding in detail with the necessary planning procedures and financial and development discussions. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, Government support will be assured by means of the appropriate financial authorisations and provisions.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fundamental purpose of a national exhibition centre is to increase earnings, and if this gamble on siting the centre outside London were to fail then the London area would lose earnings from overseas visitors and the Midlands would lose the earnings from goods which they would have sold if the centre had been more central?

Mr. Mason: I am not so pessimistic. I do not think that it is a gamble and I do not think it will fail. Britain is tending to be by-passed by European


countries. When I go abroad, visiting major trade exhibitions I do not go to Bonn or Berlin, I go to Frankfurt, Hanover, Dusseldorf. I do not go to Rome, I go to Turin or Milan. There is no reason why people should not recognise that sites exist north of London.

Mr. Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the potential site is right in the middle of green belt, that the major developer interested has already gone on record in the Birmingham Post as saying that London is the proper place and that the decision he has announced today is as bad as Stanstead and will be another white elephant for the Government?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman should realise first that there is only one positive proposal before me: it is for Birmingham or nothing. It is time that we had extra exhibition facilities in Britain. In London there is no allowance at all for planning, it would just congest London more. Secondly, it is for the G.L.C. to put forward proposals. It has not done so. No financial provisions have been put forward whatever.

Mr. Speed: May I congratulate the Minister on his courage and wisdom in siting the centre in the region which provides 40 per cent. of the country's exports. May I ask him specifically if he will ensure that there is full cooperation between Government Departments, particularly the Ministry of Transport, the Birmingham Council and Chamber of Commerce and the local authorities in my area, so that this development will not be delayed and, in my constituency, local people will be able to take an active part in seeing this development through to its fruition.

Mr. Mason: There has already been close liaison between my Department and the Birmingham Chamber and the Birmingham City Council. There is no reason why this should not continue. British Rail will make sure that there is a positive statement about the advantages of being able to use their direct line, almost to the Birmingham centre itself.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as a provincial Member I would on the whole want to see everything possible moved to the provinces, particularly to Manchester,

which is rather better than Birmingham? Would he, nevertheless, bear in mind that it does not matter what we, as such, want in this matter? Is he aware that it is a question of whether foreign buyers will go? Does he appreciate that this is really the important factor, and if he intends to carry out any viability study will he ensure that it will take into consideration where the buyers will go?

Mr. Mason: I am surprised that such a relatively young man as my hon. Friend should seem so old-fashioned. It is about time that hon. Members realised that trading is extremely serious. I do not think that buyers come to "swan" around where entertainments exist. They really want to do serious business and if there is an excellent exhibition centre on a site which is relatively cheaper, which means that they can consequently trade more cheaply and exhibit more cheaply, then they will go.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what really matters is where the customers are? Does he appreciate that it is no use siting the shop where the shopkeeper wants it, but that it has to be sited where the customer happens to be? If he says that he has been waiting for positive proposals, why did the Board of Trade not make a positive proposal? Can he say how much Government money will be squandered in this way?

Mr. Mason: I am surprised that my hon. Friend is using such exaggerated language about money being squandered. The cost will probably be about £11 million, but at least the Birmingham City Council and the Chamber of Commerce are prepared to put at least £3 million into the project. No other local authority has made an offer of that kind.

Sir K. Joseph: The Minister has made a serious statement this afternoon. Is he aware that we fully understand and admire the vigorous desire of Birmingham to have first-class exhibition facilities. Will he say, first, is there any threat of the site being in the green belt; secondly, will he tell us, is it or is it not a commercial fact that the trade associations and the main exhibiting industries are nearly unanimously opposed to Birmingham as the site for the national exhibition centre; and, thirdly, does he accept that this opposition is unlikely to evaporate because


many exhibitions depend upon public as well as trade attendance, and the public is so much more numerous in the London region? Will he also seriously consider inviting the G.L.C. to initiate simultaneously a feasibility study of all the viable or possibly viable alternatives in or near London?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Mason: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, no I do not see any point at all in trawling all over the old ground, especially when I have seen proposals going back to 1959 and 1962 when hon. Gentlemen opposite who were in office took no action. There was talk about Crystal Palace, the Hammersmith proposals, the proposals for Gatwick and so on. It would necessitate a reversal of a major Government decision to change things.
There is also the fact that the G.L.C. is not interested. There has been opposition from people with trading interests. Once the positive decision has been made, and this is really a watershed in this sort of operation, that opposition will dissipate. People will go where the facilities are, especially when they are relatively cheaper.
Thirdly, it may be—and I am not absolutely certain—that the site may impinge upon green belt, but it is near an airport, it has one owner, it is relatively cheaper and the local authority is ready to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers must be brief, too.

Mr. Julius Silverman: While expressing the satisfaction of Birmingham industry and the Birmingham civic authorities with this decision, would my right hon. Friend agree that this site is a useful site not merely for Birmingham, but is accessible from all parts of the country? Is he aware that it is in the industrial and geographical centre of Britain and is readily accessible by the airlines? Will he endeavour to do what he can to see that this decision is promoted as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is appalling that most people, in spite of the fact that we talk about being British, recognise

nothing north of London and think that Luton is on the fringe of the Continent. I hope that the Birmingham local authority will soon get planning permission, which will be subject to my right hon. Friend's decision. I hope that the Chamber will carry out its marketing survey as quickly as possible.

Sir K. Joseph: This decision is so serious that the Government should give the House the opportunity to discuss all its implications as soon as possible.

Second-hand Cars (Hire Purchase)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the further down-turn in sales in the used car market, he will now relax the hire-purchase restrictions on such cars.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No, Sir, This would be premature.

Mr. Price: As the Minister responsible for exports, is my hon. Friend aware of the great contribution which the motor industry makes to exports? Does she feel that without some help in the home market it will be able to hold down its export prices, especially since we have just had a 10 per cent. rise in the price of steel?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is interesting that the increase in car exports and the increased home sales of commercial vehicles have partially offset the difficulties in the marketing of new cars. We are aware of the necessity to maintain our export markets, but it is too soon to discuss this sort of relaxation.

Mr. Gurden: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the level of home sales governs the manufacturing price of cars and that our exports will have to be more competitive than the outlook seems to indicate?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is essential that our exports are competitive; no one has ever disputed that. There have been detailed talks with the Ministry of Technology and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we can make no announcement at the moment.

B.E.A. (Unremunerative Services)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will


give a general direction to British European Airways to discontinue any unremunerative services which an independent operator is ready to replace at his own expense.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: No, Sir.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister recall that for many years British European Airways has made a large operating loss on the Highlands and Islands services which is identified every year in its accounts at its own specific request? Does he not agree that when there is an opportunity for these services to be taken over by an independent operator B.E.A. should welcome that opportunity and divest itself of its loss-making service as soon as possible?

Mr. Roberts: It is surely for the airline concerned to decide which services, if any, it wishes to discontinue or to continue if they are part of its pattern of policy. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the specific mention which we made to the very necessary Highlands and Islands services in the White Paper.

Mr. Rankin: Would my hon. Friend, in any future attempt of this nature, be very careful about seeking to restore the independents at the expense of B.E.A.? Can he give any occasion on which an independent has come forward to offer to run the Western Isles services and make a profit?

Mr. Roberts: There has been none, to my knowledge.

Mr. Corfield: Surely it is clear that basically this is the decision for the licensing authority? Will the Minister give an assurance that it will not be instructed one way or the other but will decide any application which comes before it on its merit?

Mr. Roberts: Any operator can apply for a licence on any route, and the A.T.L.B. considers each application impartially.

President of the Board of Trade (Visits to Eastern Europe)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade to which Eastern European countries he intends to pay official visits in 1970.

Mr. Mason: I have accepted an invitation to visit Roumania in March and I hope to visit other countries later in the year.

Mrs. Short: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he would be very welcome in many Eastern European countries, and particularly at their trade fairs? If he can equal the increase in our trade with Roumania in the G.D.R., for example, by calling at the Leipzig Fair on the way, it will be a great advantage to both sides.

Mr. Mason: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I doubt very much whether I shall be able to attend the Leipzig Fair.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: When the right hon. Gentleman makes his visit, if he makes any, to Eastern European countries and concludes trade agreements, will he ensure that the products covered by those agreements do not include sensitive items which will upset our own home market, such as agricultural goods flooding on to our market at prices well below ours?

Mr. Mason: I listened with interest to the preceding replies given by my hon. Friend, which were adequate.

East Germany (Trade)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the expansion in trade between Great Britain and the German Democratic Republic under the three-year agreement recently negotiated.

Mr. Mason: I hope that trade will continue to grow, but quantitative estimates are not possible.

Mrs. Short: That is not a very enthusiastic Answer. The C.B.I. and the London Chamber are sending trade delegations to the German Democratic Republic in the very near future. Does my right hon. Friend think that there will be an increase in trade as a result of this activity? Cannot he say what he hopes to achieve at the end of the year?

Mr. Mason: Roughly. Our provisional figures for 1969 are that exports to East Germany totalled £12·1 million


and imports £14·6 million. But we expect that in 1970 our exports will be substantially higher and we hope to exceed our record of £15·9 million which we established in 1966.

Civil Aircraft (Supersonic Flight)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has not yet reached a decision regarding a ban on supersonic flight overland by civil aircraft, in the light of the fact that other Governments have decided to impose such a ban.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet come to a decision as to whether the Concorde aircraft can be permitted to operate at supersonic speeds over Great Britain.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We have not yet completed our assessment of the technical, social and economic factors involved in imposing any restrictions on supersonic flights over the United Kngdom. A decision will be announced long before commercial services begin.

Mr. Jenkins: In spite of what was said the other day from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Bournemouth about the interests of the individual in these matters being unimportant, are not the interests of individuals in amenity questions extremely important to the Government? Will the Minister make representations and hold discussions with the Minister for Regional Planning and Local Government with a view to ensuring that in all circumstances the environmental interests of the citizen are preserved?

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Bournemouth. I think that he is mistaken.

Mr. Roberts: I assure my hon. Friend that these considerations are fully borne in mind by all Ministers concerned in this decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the economic viability of this project in which so much public money has already been invested is very much tied up with the question whether it will be permissible to operate

this aircraft supersonically over land, is it not essential, now that the aircraft exists, to carry out the tests and come to a decision very quickly?

Mr. Roberts: I do not accept the implications of the first part of the supplementary question. But I agree that the tests are necessary to help to decide the operational capabilities and therefore the commercial capabilities of the aircraft. I hope that a decision will be reached in the next few months. As I said, the commercial flights are some years ahead.

Anti-Dumping Laws (Cotton Textiles)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the anti-dumping laws, with particular respect to cotton textiles; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend will recall, the antidumping legislation was strengthened by the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Amendment Act, 1968. Since 1957, six applications have been made in respect of cotton textiles. One was not accepted for full investigation: two were withdrawn: two were rejected. Antidumping action was taken in the remaining case.

Mr. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that her Answer will give great satisfaction to people in Lancashire who will be pleased to note that the dumping laws appear to be reasonably satisfactory? Can she say how the numbers compare with the numbers of complaints before the new legislation?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I cannot give that information offhand, but it is interesting that in some cases, when the application was not proceeded with, nevertheless an alteration was made by the exporting country which brought it into line with what we had asked for.

Mr. Blaker: Surely the legislation to which the hon. Lady refers was the result of an international agreement in 1967 at the end of the Kennedy Round, which was the culmination of negotiations instituted under the preceding Government?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The legislation is very helpful. I do not think that we should argue about why it was enacted. We did it; the Opposition did not.

Trade with South Africa

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent development of British South African trade.

Mr. Mason: Last year our exports, including re-exports, to South Africa rose by about 10 per cent. to £291 million. Imports were £303 million.

Mr. Wall: I welcome the increase, but would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some hypocrisy in the policy of increasing trade with South Africa and at the same time denying arms which are needed to implement our joint defence responsibilities for the Cape route?

Mr. Mason: That is not so. The policy is morally right. It is internationally accepted. As far as I can gather, it is having no deleterious effects upon our trade with South Africa.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In view of recent newspaper articles, has the Board of Trade made any estimate of what percentage of British South African trade is British Rhodesian trade?

Mr. Mason: I am not responsible for what may be contained in Press articles.

Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh

Mr. Dalyell: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects radar to be installed at Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: It is planned to have the radar in operation before the Commonwealth Games begin on 15th July, 1970. So far the programme to achieve this is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who had pressing engagements in Scotland last night to immortalise Robert Burns were, ironically, diverted to Ayrshire and that we were three hours late this morning? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is an urgent matter? There is rumour that the installation will be completed by 1st April. Can he confirm this?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot confirm it at this stage—it is far too early—but progress is satisfactory. Incidentally, I should not have thought that it was necessary to immortalise Robert Burns, because he has done that already for himself.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with local authorities on the financing of Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: None since the discussions with Edinburgh Corporation. As indicated in reply to my hon. Friend's Questions on 28th November last, I am always willing to consider suggestions by local authorities for the financing of Turnhouse.—[Vol. 792, c. 170–1.]

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not time that the Board of Trade took the initiative and knocked some of the local authorities' heads together with a view to providing at least some money?

Mr. Roberts: No, Sir. I think that it is best for us to await suggestions from the local authorities concerned. There are a number of them. As I have said, we stand ready to consider any proposals which they may make to us.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Now that Turnhouse has to be the airport for the Dundee area and Fife as well as Edinburgh, are the Government treating as important and urgent the question of another runway and new terminal buildings?

Mr. Roberts: Yes, indeed. I have delayed an Answer on this, as the hon. Member knows, because the cost-benefit study is being looked at again—it has been extended to some extent—because I am anxious that every aspect of the problem shall be examined, including the points which have been raised.

Coal Exports

Mr. David Watkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what tonnage of coal was exported from 1st January, 1969, to the latest available date; of what types; and to what countries;
(2) what was the value of coal exports from 1st January, 1969, to the latest available date.

Mr. Mason: Figures are given on pages 130 and 131 of the Overseas Trade Accounts for December, 1969. They show that coal exports in 1969 amounted to 3·4 million tons valued at £15·8 million. Western Europe was our main market.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there appears to be a particular potential for the expansion of exports of British coal to power stations in North Germany? Is he in contact with the appropriate German authorities about this?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. The Coal Board has recently gained contracts with German power stations distant from the Ruhr. This has been helpful for them because of the mine closure programme in the Netherlands and Belgium. We have been able to step into the market at the right time.

Exports and Import Saving

Mr. Jopling: asked the President of the President of the Board of Trade, what priority he gives to exporting compared with import saving.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The policy of the Government is to encourage a continued improvement in the balance of trade, whether by increased exports or by import saving. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has a particular concern within the general policy for the promotion of exports.

Mr. Jopling: Is not the hon. Lady aware that her right hon. Friend is on record as having said that, all other things being equal he preferred exporting to import saving? Does the hon. Lady realise that that is totally wrong? Will she get her right hon. Friend to stand behind the Minister of Agriculture at the forthcoming Price Review to try to get more generous treatment from the Treasury for our farmers?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I assure the hon. Member that I stood behind the Minister of Agriculture recently when he was being attacked with sheep and all sorts of things by farmers. If we are a world trading country and we expand our export markets, it must be obvious that to increase our exports will, in the long

run, be more advantageous than import substitution. It is because we have forward various ideas to industry for ways in which it can insist on import substitution that we are obviously doing all we can on both fronts.

Heathrow Airport (Noise)

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade by what date he estimates that an effective automatic noise-monitoring system will be installed at Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The present system, which is partly manual and partly automatic, is effective, but for reasons of economy we expect to move to a largely automatic system at fixed points in 1971. Two mobile stations will, however, be retained in order to maintain flexibility of control.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the Minister say whether this rather astonishing delay is due to the fact that the Post Office cannot supply four telephone lines of the required technical qualification and reliability?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot confirm that. Any delay is to be deplored, but I do not think that it is unduly long in this case.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is generally accepted that automatic monitoring is superior to the present system? Will he consider the possibility of extending monitoring not merely from the vicinity of the airport but to the area beneath the flight path into the airport?

Mr. Roberts: I take note of the second part of my hon. Friend's question. On the first part, the prime, motive here is economy. Whether monitoring will be more effective remains to be seen. This has been done for reasons of economy.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade on now many occasions in the last two years an airline has admitted that its pilot was at fault in violating the noise regulations at Heathrow; and how many violations of the noise regulations were recorded by the authorities at Heathrow in this period.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Explanations were sought in 816 cases and airlines admitted pilot error in 51 of them. 1,080 infringements were recorded in the same two-year period. In the balance of 264 cases, the noise levels were only marginally over the limit and the airlines concerned were notified, but no explanation was sought.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the discrepancy between the two figures? Could it be due to the fact that, very often, the monitoring of an aircraft takes place only when it is on the prescribed route and not when it is off the prescribed route?

Mr. Roberts: The difference between the two figures is that 1,080 infringements were recorded but explanation was sought in only 816 cases. The difference of 264 represents the marginal cases in which explanation did not need to be sought.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that excessive noise is injurious to health? What is he doing to try to make life more tolerable to people who live adjacent to airports?

Mr. Roberts: I am well aware of the problem. Indeed, we had a far-ranging debate on it in the House this morning. It would take me too long to go into the efforts that we are making to improve the situation in the short term, but I emphasise that there is no quick and easy solution to the problem and that we must concentrate on the middle and long term.

Mr. Corfield: Can the Minister confirm or deny the suggestion in my hon. Friend's Question that some of the pilots were infringing air traffic control by being off their correct route?

Mr. Roberts: I could not, off the cuff, confirm the actual circumstances which gave rise to the infringement and the inquiry. If the hon. Member and his hon. Friend particularly wish to have this detail, I will do my best to find it.

Hall-marking

Mr. John Page: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce legislation to change the hall-marking laws in connection with the attachment of precious metals to base metals in the manufacture of musical

instruments; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The treatment of articles made partly of precious metal and partly of other materials is one of the difficult problems to be resolved before we can introduce reforming legislation. I cannot predict when this will be possible.

Mr. Page: Is the hon. Lady aware that the musical instrument industry is losing a lot of important export business because it cannot attach a silver lip plate to a metal musical instrument, even though it is not required to be hallmarked? Cannot the hon. Lady cut through a bit of red tape since the Goldsmiths' Company and the Assay Office are keen to co-operate with the musical instruments industry in any sensible proposals?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I certainly have sympathy with the hon. Member. He will accept that it is difficult to use a hallmark which, apparently, gives a cachet to the entire instrument. If there is a way round this, we shall be only too happy to find it. As the mother of somebody who is trying to learn to use one of these instruments, all I can say is that one can get awfully fed up with hearing "Good King Wenceslas".

Preferences

Sir R. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in reconciling the difference between the Government's offer of generalised preferences to developing countries made by his predecessor in 1964, including safeguards for Commonwealth countries, and the proposal made by the United States of America for the abolition of the present system of Commonwealth preference and other preferential systems as a condition of their co-operation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Discussions on this as well as other aspects of generalised preferences are continuing in the O.E.C.D.

Sir R. Russell: Could the hon. Lady give an assurance that the Government will continue to resist American demands for the abolition of Commonwealth preferences which do a great deal of


good to the Commonwealth and no harm to Europe?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Obviously, I think it would be only common sense to accept that Commonwealth countries cannot be asked to give up their preferences without getting something in return. I think that the hon. Gentleman may take it that we are aware of the difficulties. We are continuing discussions. We have the interests of our Commonwealth countries very much at heart.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Ottawa Agreements going back to 1924, which favour certain countries of the old British Commonwealth, can no longer be justified in the interests of the British textile industry and other of our northern industries which have suffered very severely from the unfair treatment resulting from the agreements, which ought to be scrapped, in my submission, although I am in no way antipathetic to Commonwealth interests?

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is not taking into account the considerable changes there have been in the textile field. I myself only this afternoon have dealt with some cases in which action has been taken by the Government. What we are concerned to see is that the Commonwealth countries, which, after all, have the right to expect a certain amount of consideration from us, should not have their rights in these matters totally ignored

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I express my regret, Mr. Speaker, that in a supplementary to Question No. 27 I referred to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) when I should have referred to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield)?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart) rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. How can a question be asked, Mr. Speaker, when a point of order has been raised by the hon. Member who wanted to apologise?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is aware at all times that after Question

Time is over hon. Members are so enthusiastic that they want to put questions. I noticed that the hon. Member wanted to put a question, but it was half a minute past half-past three.

Mr. Peart: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short Business statement.
The business tomorrow has been rearranged as follows:
Until seven o'clock, Supply [8th Allotted day] (First Part), when there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion relating to Housing.
Afterwards, as already announced, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member may address the House at one time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Leader of the House say whether he feels, since on a Thursday the Orders of the Day are usually not reached until ten minutes past four, there will be adequate time for the debate on housing, considering that both Front Benches will take part in it? Will there be adequate time for back benchers? After all, this matter does affect hon. Members with constituency interests. About an hour will be split between the two Front Benches. Does my right hon. Friend consider that this will be a fair and reasonable debate? Could we not have a whole day for it?

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart rose—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Shut up!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) must behave himself.

Mr. Peart: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I agree with him that it is important that back benchers should have opportunities in the debate, but it is not for me to decide this. I would hope that


the Front Bench speeches will be short and precise.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of explanation is an animal I do not recognise.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order. I am extremely sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I did something, or if I am doing something, not in order, but I am deaf. I am extremely sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House always accepts apologies in the spirit in which they are offered, and I do, wholeheartedly.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Films Bill, displaced by the change of business tomorrow, will be debated? Will it be in the early part of next week?

Mr. Peart: I will make an announcement tomorrow about this.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In supporting the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) about the lack of time for the housing debate tomorrow, may I ask, why could not the Government have found time for this most important subject? Why did they wait for the Opposition to have this vital subject debated in the House? Cannot even now another half a day, making a full day, be found out of Government time for this matter to be examined in detail?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has been in the House a long time and he knows that the Opposition, quite rightly, takes the initiative on these Supply Days. We have this half day's debate. Let us proceed with it in the normal way.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the short time for this very important debate tomorrow will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Prime Minister, on his return, will not give us a longwinded statement about his visit to America?

Mr. Peart: That is another matter.

Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend take serious note of the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir

Harmar Nicholls)? Could we not have a full day to debate the question of housing? Many of us would like to examine in depth many of the reasons why the Tory-controlled councils have cut back on their housing. This lack of time limits the possibility of debating that. We also should like to examine in some depth whether this cutback by Conservative councils is a policy coordinated between the Tory councils and the Conservative Central Office, but opportunity to examine that tomorrow will be denied us because of the shortness of the debate.

Mr. Peart: I have announced the business. Quite rightly, under Standing Order No. 18 the Opposition have the initiative in the matter for debate and we are to have this half day's debate.

Mr. Maudling: I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) is very important. Without wanting to particularise, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, will ensure that the business is so arranged that there is the maximum time available for the debate of housing?

Mr. Peart: I hope so, but, obviously, if the House wishes the Prime Minister to make a statement he will do so. But I will do all I can. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Jopling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say just at what time we can expect a vote on the Private Bill which is to be debated tomorrow?

Mr. Peart: The normal time, 10 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are concerned with a statement only about a half-day's business.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more time will be available for debate tomorrow if less time than usual is wasted on Business questions?

Mr. Peart: That is another matter. I appreciate that hon. Members wish to raise questions and legitimate points on business, but I wish they would not be so verbose.

Mr. Fortescue: Can the Leader of the House say whether the Prayer which was


originally set down for after the Private Bill tomorrow will be debated tomorrow?

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. It will come as soon as the Private Business is disposed of.

BILLS PRESENTED

EQUAL PAY (No. 2)

Mrs. Secretary Castle, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Callaghan, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mrs. Judith Hart, and Mr. Harold Walker presented a Bill to prevent discrimination, as regards terms and conditions of employment, between men and women:

And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

Mrs. Secretary Castle, supported by Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Gerald Fowler, and Mr. Denis Howell presented a Bill to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964:

And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS (PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBERS)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect prospective subscribers to periodical publications by enabling them in certain circumstances to rescind the agreement to subscribe; and for purposes connected therewith.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Mr. Scott-Hopkinsrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It always helps on these occasions if hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber do so quickly and quietly.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I think that the House is aware of the basis of the problem which I am trying to rectify by asking leave to bring in the Bill. There are, as I am sure hon. Members know, some salesmen going round various areas throughout the country and selling on doorsteps by posing as students selling subscriptions to magazines. These magazines are not always English but frequently foreign as well. The salesmen are selling them for cash as well as cheques on the doorsteps. Hon. Members may not be completely aware how this operation is carried on. It is very dangerous.
These salesmen pose as students. They say that they are working for a company which rewards them according to the number of points they accumulate, which, they say, depends on the number of magazine subscriptions they sell. They make a tremendous appeal to the housewife, or whoever answers the door, to assist them in selling their subscriptions so that they may get a higher points bonus. They say that if they do so they will win a competition and will be given as a prize a holiday overseas. Many of these people are not students. They are working for an organisation which carefully plans its campaign. The story which the salesmen tell is a complete fabrication.
This matter has been investigated not only by the police, but also by several newspapers, particularly the Sheffield Morning Telegraph, which carried out a comprehensive investigation. A young newspaper reporter attended some of the briefing meetings at which the most detailed discussion was given to these would-be salesmen as to how to insinuate themselves into the household and to tell


what is virtually a sob story to encourage the householder to subscribe to these magazines.
The story is nearly always a complete fabrication. What they are really doing is selling subscriptions of magazines to housewives. They almost always call on the housewives in the morning when the male members of the family are not at home. In this way they feel that they have the maximum scope and time in which to sell their wares.
Frequently, the subscriptions are not for English magazines, but for American ones. There is a great deal of confusion because many English magazines have the same titles as the American ones. I would as an example cite the magazine Vogue, and there are others. After a subscriber has paid his subscription for a magazine, thinking that it is the English magazine Vogue, he finds that two or three months later he is sent a copy of an American magazine which is far from the magazine he thinks he has ordered. This point is not made clear by the salesman.
The salesman who is posing as a student invariably tries to get cash from the would-be subscriber, or if it is a cheque he goes to the nearest post office where the would-be subscriber is probably known, cashes it, and then leaves the area.
The methods used by these salesmen who describe themselves as students are so dubious that frequently they frighten the people with whom they are dealing. Indeed, in my own constituency, where the matter has been brought to my attention they have terrorised, there is no other word for it, several householders, among them old ladies, so that they part with every single penny they have available in cash in the house, or make out a cheque, purely to get rid of the salesman.
Once the man of the house comes home from work, finds out what has happened, and usually disagrees with what has occurred, he finds that there is absolutely no way in which the subscription, can be got back. If protests are made to the company concerned, it says that the subscription has been paid, that the document has been signed, that there is no legal redress for the subscriber, and that they have no intention of refunding the subscription. Therefore, there is no ways

in which the would-be subscriber can get back his money.
The magazines involved often are of no interest to the person concerned. They are overseas' magazines of little or no interest whatever to the subscriber. The subscriber has been talked into it.
I seek to institute a delaying period so that this practice of soliciting on doorsteps may be stopped. I seek to allow would-be subscribers a cooling-off period so they may change their minds on the same lines as the provisions relating to hire-purchase agreements. The practice I have outlined could be covered in the same way. I have suggested that a copy of the agreement could be sent back to the subscriber after he has signed it, and for four days after he has received the copy of the agreement which he originally signed he would have the option to rescind the agreement into which he has entered. This would give the would-be subscriber time to think about whether he needs the magazines.
If they are bought from a reputable firm through a reputable salesman there is no question that the agreement will go through. But in cases such as those I am outlining the magazines do not arrive for about 10 days and therefore this would in no way hold up any genuine process. I feel that this would be an eminently reasonable method by which to prevent these practices taking place.
These agreements would only be included in the proposed Bill if they are signed and made outside normal premises, which means at the home of the would-be subscriber. Anything entered into in the form of an agreement at normal business premises would not come within the provisions of the Bill that I seek leave to bring in.
I understand that there are objections to what I am trying to do. The Government may well say that I have not defined closely enough the type of people that I wish to stop. This may well be so. If it is so, then I hope that, if I am allowed leave, and after a Second Reading the Bill goes to Committee, then the Government will give me help in drafting the Amendments to narrow the definition.
With all the ingenuity that I and some of my hon. Friends have at our command, we have tried to define the matter as narrowly as we can to cover the salesmen


who in selling magazine subscriptions introduce themselves as students. These are the only people whom I am trying to restrict and in relation to whom I wish to give a cooling off period. I wish to include nobody else. I hope that I shall be able to achieve this with the wording in the proposed Bill.
I have discussed the matter with many of the interests concerned. The publishers of this country are in agreement with the idea behind the Bill, and indeed they support it. No reputable publisher wishes to indulge in the kind of practice which I have described. They wish to see it stopped. It is not in their interests or in the interests of the ordinary public that it should be allowed to continue.
Since this is a practice which is widespread and which is terrorising, or frighening many people ranging from Cornwall to Derbyshire, in both of which places I have come across the practice, I would ask the House to give me the leave I seek in the interests of the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Scott-Hopkins supported by Mr. Ridsdale, Mr. Emery, Mr. Bessell and Mr. Bence.

PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS (PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBERS)

Bill to protect prospective subscribers to periodical publications by enabling them in certain circumstances to rescind the agreement to subscribe; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 13th February and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

HOUSING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.47 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is concerned with the implementation of two valuable Reports by the Law Commission on family law, namely, the Report on Financial Provision in Matrimonial Proceedings (Law Commission No. 25) and the Abolition of Proceedings for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Law Commission No. 23).
The Bill does not, however, implement all the recommendations in the Law Commission's Report on Financial Provision in Matrimonial Proceedings. The recommendation that we should abolish the right to claim damages for adultery, actions for enticement, seduction, and harbouring are not implemented by this Bill. They are the subject of another Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor), namely, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to which this House has already given a Second Reading.
The report is not the Law Commission's last word on the difficult question of matrimonial property. It is at this moment giving consideration to the outstanding problems in this respect. These are difficult problems and its report on them is not expected for some time. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said recently in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), the Commission hope in the present year to complete the informal consultations necessary before its first working paper can be issued. The first working paper is, of course, only a preliminary step in the processes of the Commission, though an important step.
The present Bill is designed to rationalise and simplify what we regard as an


unnecessarily complex branch of our law. It eliminates the anomalous distinctions between the different types of relief available in different proceedings, it will so far as is practicable get rid of the current discrimination between husbands and wives and will give the courts clear statutory guide lines, based largely on existing practice, to be followed in the exercise of their wide discretionary powers.
It also makes a number of changes in the substantive law relating to matrimonial property. The most important of these are firstly that the Divorce Court is to be empowered to go much further than it can at present in dealing with the spouses' property on the breakdown of a marriage. The court will in effect have power to reallocate the family assets between them where it considers it appropriate to do so.
Secondly, the Bill recognises that the contribution made by the wife in looking after the home justifies her being treated as having in certain circumstances become entitled to receive money value for it. This is another concession to the principle for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark contended, and I acknowledge that circumstance to him.
Thirdly, the Bill provides for the cessation on remarriage of an order for periodical payments. Under the present law remarriage merely affords grounds upon which such an order may be varied or discharged. Finally, the Bill abolishes the obsolete remedy of restitution of conjugal rights.
The principal beneficiaries under the Bill will be petitioners, particularly wives, and children. However, the Bill does in one respect add to the safeguards afforded by the Divorce Reform Act to the "innocent wife", as I shall describe her for present purposes. Section 6 of that Act does not empower the court to order a petitioner to make provision for his wife, although the court can of course refuse to grant him a decree until he has done so. The Bill enables the court not only to order the husband to make the necessary provision, but also confers a wider power to make orders than at present exists.
It is perhaps right that I should say something at this stage about the relationship between the Bill and the Divorce

Reform Act. Hon. Members may recall that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) introduced the Divorce Reform Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark introduced a Matrimonial Property Bill. The object of this Bill was to give the court power, whether or not there were divorce proceedings, to divide equally between husband and wife all property acquired by either during the marriage.
However, as a result of discussions which took place, the Matrimonial Property Bill was withdrawn, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor undertook not to bring the Divorce Reform Bill into force until legislation based upon the Law Commission's proposals had been introduced. In the event, the Divorce Reform Bill was amended on Report in another place so that, instead of coming into force on the appointed day, it will come into force on 1st January, 1971.
The Government would have introduced this Bill whether or not Parliament had enacted the Divorce Reform Act. That Act could operate as it stands whether or not Parliament approves this Bill. To say that is not, in my opinion, to derogate from the value of the work which has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and his associates. The fairer treatment of women in respect of property is a prominent feature of the present Bill, and my hon. Friend and his associates did notable service in emphasising, though on a broader scale than in this Bill, the need for a new deal in women's property rights.
Turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill, Clause 1 gives the court power on a petition for divorce, nullity or judicial separation to order either party to the marriage to make periodical payments to the other for maintenance until the determination of the suit—what we nowadays call alimony pending suit. Hon. Members will notice that the order may be made against husband or wife without distinction.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 lay down and clarify the power of the court to order financial provision to be made by one spouse for the other or by either of the spouses for the children. As a result, not only will the existing powers of the court be exerciseable without the various


technical distinctions which bedevil this branch of the law, but the court will have the additional power conferred by Clause 4.
This is the change of substance to which I referred earlier when I said that on divorce the court will in effect be able to reallocate the family assets between the spouses in a proper case. In exercising this important power, the court must have regard to the various matters see out in Clause 5. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraphs (e) and (f) of that Clause. Paragraph (e) expressly requires the court to take into account the contribution made by a spouse to the welfare of the family by looking after the home and caring for the children.
This is a direct recognition of the important work done by the wife who remains at home. It goes a long way in a limited area towards meeting the aims of my hon. Friend and his associates. However, I must stress that it does not, of course, introduce any form of community of property on marriage.
Paragraph (f) makes express mention of the prospective loss of a pension as a factor to be taken into account by the Court.
Clause 6 makes a change of substance in the existing law where there has been what is called "wilful neglect to maintain". The change made from the current law is first that either spouse—and net merely the wife—can apply where it is the children who have been neglected and, secondly, for the first time, a husband will be able to apply on his own behalf, though only where his own earning capacity has been impaired.
Clause 7 effects another of the changes of substance to which I referred earlier. It prescribes the maximum period for which periodical payments in favour of a spouse can be made. The Law Commission recommended that an order for periodical payments should terminate on the remarriage of the payee, and this Clause gives effect to this recommendation.
Clause 8 deals with the duration of orders made in favour of children and provides that, unless the child is undergoing full-time education or there are special circumstances, no order can be made if the child is over 18.
Clauses 9 to 12 give the court extensive powers to vary orders which have already been made. They reproduce the existing law, with minor modifications. I should perhaps draw attention, in particular, to Clause 11, which gives the court power to order the repayment of amounts paid in excess of what ought to have been paid.
Clauses 13 to 15 restate, with minor modifications, the existing law governing the variation of maintenance agreements.
Clause 16 restates in a modified form the existing law giving a court power to set aside transactions made by those who get rid of their property in the hope of defeating anticipated claims for maintenance.
Clauses 17 to 19 deal with the very important question of the protection and custody of children. For the most part, they restate the provisions of the present law in a more convenient form; they also resolve some important questions on which the law is not altogether clear.
Clause 20 abolishes what is regarded as the obsolete remedy of restitution of conjugal rights. I think that hon. Members will agree that, once a marriage has broken down, no deserting spouse is likely to return merely because he has been told to do so by a Judge where no penalty is imposed for his failure to do so. Moreover, it seems to me and, I think, to the House, that this proposal abolishing the remedy of restitution is an acknowledgement of the accepted concept that the breakdown of a marriage is a ground for divorce.
Clauses 21 to 27 deal with a number of technical matters and, in substance, reproduce existing law. I need only say that Clause 21 applies the new rule that periodic payments shall cease on re-marriage to existing orders where the re-marriage occurs after the commencement of the Act, if this Bill becomes law.
Clause 28 resolves the difficult question of the extent to which a spouse's contribution to the improvement of property entitles him or her to a share in it or to the proceeds of its sale. This Clause provides that, if the contribution is of a substantial nature, the spouse making it is entitled to a share and that, if it has not been agreed between them, the court may award such share as is just in the circumstances. Hitherto, the


law on this has been doubtful, and this doubt has led to an appreciable volume of litigation. Clause 28 will remove the doubt.
With the permission of the House I pass over certain technical points in some of the Clauses which follow. Clause 30 makes the convenient summary proceeding under section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act available after divorce for a period of three years. It is not so available at present.
Clause 31 provides that, where there is a judicial separation, neither spouse has any right to succeed on the intestacy of the other. The current rule is anomolous and indefensible, and the opportunity has been taken to get rid of it.
Clause 33 gives effect to the Law Commission's recommendations that the wife's so called agency of necessity should be abolished. This will mean that a wife will no longer be entitled to pledge her husband's credit in order to obtain what the law regards as necessaries, even though she has no authority, express or implied, to do so. This rule has become obsolete in a society where a woman has the same right to own property as a man and to apply for legal aid to instruct solicitors to act for her in divorce proceedings if she cannot afford to pay for them.
I should perhaps make it clear that, in abolishing this anachronism, we are not in any way effecting the true agency, express or implied, of a wife to enter every day transactions on her husband's behalf.
Of the remaining provisions, I think that the only one to which I need draw attention is Clause 35(2). This is the provision that the courts may have regard to the Law Commission's reports in construing the Measure. It is hoped that this will assist in the interpretation of the law when, as we hope will be the case, the Bill is accepted.

Sir Eric Errington: Is this the first occasion on which this sort of Clause has been inserted in a Bill?

The Solicitor-General: One must be cautious about details in a matter of this kind. My understanding is that there is an element of novelty in this proposal, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take that as being my answer to his question,

I recognise that there are differing opinions on the point. I suggest that there are strong arguments in favour of the proposal. I ought to point out that the Bill does not make it incumbent upon anyone to read the reports. There is nothing mandatory about it. In past years, I have often stressed the importance of the House maintaining the best relations possible with the Law Commission. It is very important that, in our developing affairs, there should be a good and friendly relationship between Parliament and the Commission.
I am anxious that nothing should occur to obstruct that purpose. The value of resort to the report for the purpose of interpretation will diminish the more the Bill, as finally enacted, diverges as a result of Amendments in this House from the form of legislation recommended in the report. But these are the type of considerations that can and would be taken into account easily if this proposal were acceptable. These difficulties would readily be overcome as consideration of Bills in relation to and in the context of reports of the Commission develop.
I therefore recommend this proposal to the House. I shall, of course, listen with care to what is said about it, because I recognise that there are differences of view. But I trust that further consideration by right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Members will lead them to think that overall there are advantages in what is proposed.
The Bill sets out in legislative terms that learned judges have a right to do what it must be recognised many of them will often do and wish to do, namely, to consider the source and origin of legislative proposals as expressed by members of the Law Commission. I put this forward as a proposal which further reflection indicates to be more desirable than in certain instances first impressions suggest.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves this point, will he address himself to this matter? Forgetting the merits of the suggestion that there should be the right to look at either the Law Commission's Report or, indeed, reports of parliamentary debates on the Bill, would it not be better to wait until a Bill is brought forward, if one is to be brought forward, dealing with the interpretation


of statutes, as the Law Commission has suggested, rather than appear to bring it in by the back door as it is done in this Bill?

The Solicitor-General: That might be an arguable point of view. My recollection is that the noble Lord Wilberforce had in mind a provision similar to this in regard to the Theft Act.

Sir David Renton: I think that it was the Animals Act.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had thought of introducing into a Bill a provision of this kind. My recollection is that in that instance it was regarded as rather a persuasive matter that the whole subject was to be available for consideration in a later report of the Commission on the interpretation of statutes.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) will appreciate that that, at any rate, has some bearing upon the point that he has just put to me. The hon. Gentleman used the expression "by the back door". I think that that is an over-contentious observation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant anything offensive by it, but nothing could be more open than what is proposed here. It is a matter which, clearly, is capable of determination on its merits by the House and I suggest that the point be debated.
I, and the Government, recommend the Bill to the House. I do not think that the wider issues of interpretation of statutes, which have still to be dealt with, are a good ground for deferring a decision on this point.

Sir Lionel Heald: May I suggest that for "by the back door" we substitute "the cart before the horse"? Report No. 21 of the Law Commission, which I have had the pleasure of reading, deals with the subject in very general terms. Surely it is unsual, before Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the general, to anticipate it by passing to the particular.

The Solicitor-General: The expression "the cart before the horse" has none of the indelicate undertones or overtones that the "back door" has.
These are the general observations that I have to offer to the House upon this point for giving the Bill a Second Reading.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to the valuable work of the Law Commission in producing the report on which the Bill is based. Without it I am sure that we should not have had such a good Bill and we should certainly not have had it so soon.

4.17 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I am sure that the whole House would wish me, first, to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General upon his well-deserved elevation to the Privy Council. As one of his oldest friends, it gives me great pleasure to do this.
We would also like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his excellent recovery from his illness and to thank him for his lucid explanation of the Bill which, although not controversial, is somewhat complicated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly helped us a great deal to understand it.
Apart from Clause 35(2), upon which some of my right hon. and learned and hon. Friends have already made interventions, with which I agreed, we welcome the Bill. I shall, of course, have a lot to say about Clause 35 later. We welcome the Bill not only because of its many detailed improvements and several points of real substance, but also because it does a useful piece of tidying-up in a branch of the law which affects the family. Alas, it affects the family too often in these days of broken marriages.
I had serious doubts about the setting up of the Law Commission, but I think that it did a very good job of work on this Bill. However, I strongly deprecate the implication in some of the comments made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in answer to my hon. Friend's intervention, that Parliament has to keep a friendly relationship with the Law Commission by not diminishing the value of its reports through our Amendments. If that is to be the attitude of Parliament towards the Law Commission, we might just as well pack up and go home.
We really cannot have the Commission, however admirably it does its work, attempting to usurp the sovereignty of Parliament over detailed legislation which affects the citizen, especially on occasions when it does so in the citizen's every day life.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about me personally. I do not think that he has put accurately any implication of mine in the passage to which he referred.

Sir D. Renton: If I have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am delighted. We shall have to examine HANSARD carefully to see what he said and its implications.
I should like to mention something which the Solicitor-General did not mention, namely, the Long Title of the Bill—one of the longest Long Titles to a Bill which I have seen. Not only is it too long; it is too detailed and, paradoxically, in spite of its length, too restrictive. I assume that it is designed to ensure that we do not try to improve on the work of the Law Commission. I find that the Commission's draft clause had a similar Long Title.
That is not right. It has been customary to make the Long Title long enough to cover the subject, but not so as to deprive us of opportunities of tabling Amendments which are broadly within the scope of the subject. We should draw attention to this precedent in the hope that it will not become a constant legislative practice.
It is particularly unfortunate on this occasion, because this is a branch of the law in which hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have made important contributions. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) introduced the Matrominial Causes Act, 1968, with the support of all parties, which extended to the county courts the power to make maintenance orders without restriction, just as the High Court had power to make maintenance orders without restriction. It was an important social advance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and others were members of a Committee of which Mr. Anthony Cripps, Q.C., was the dis-

tinguished Chairman and on which served Mr. Geoffrey Howe, Q.C., a former respected Member of the House. The pamphlet "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex" came out six months before the Law Commission's Report was published.
I like to think that the Commission had the benefit of this pamphlet. I am glad to say that some of its proposals are embodied in the Bill—for instance, in Clauses 5 and 28. But there are various other points in the pamphlet to which in Committee we should like to have given attention and table Amendments on them, but we are in the embarrassing position that they would be outside the very long Long Title, although well within the scope of the general subject of matrimonial proceedings and property which the Bill covers.
It is, therefore, with a slight sense of frustration that we approach the remaining stages of the Bill. This is regrettable because this is not a party matter but something in respect of which both sides of the House have done their best to make advances and improvements in the law.
I turn to the Bill. The Solicitor-General was right in emphasising that the principal method used in the Bill to make improvements is to give the courts wider discretion to make orders in favour of spouses and children when a marriage has broken down, and—this is very important—it gives the courts a wider range of circumstances to consider in exercising their wider discretion. We are glad that the Bill does not fetter the court's discretion when deciding these important matters. Among the improvements made are changes about which nearly everyone is likely to agree.
It is one thing to give the courts a wide discretion to make orders which should, in justice, be made, but it is much more difficult on many occasions to enforce them. We attempted to deal with this matter some years ago through the Maintenance Orders (Attachment of Earnings) Act, 1958, which I had to pilot through the Committee and Report stages. It was strangely controversial in those days, only 12 years ago. I do not think that it would have been so controversial if it had been part of this Bill.
The procedure which we introduced, largely as a result of the initiative of


my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), has helped in many cases, but even so there are many evasions of payment which, even when attachment of earnings orders have been made, result from men moving to other jobs some distance from the places where the order is to be enforced and it is difficult to catch up with them and to discover to what jobs they have gone.
This problem was dealt with on pages 23 and 24 of "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex" and it was recommended that the existence of an attachment earnings order should be recorded on a man's P.45 tax form. It may be that the Bill is not the right place in which to do this. It may be that the Bill is not the right place in which to deal fully with the enforcement of court orders anyway. There is a Bill, to which it would not be in order for me to refer in detail, the Administration of Justice Bill which has just come to us from the House of Lords, in which various steps are taken regarding the enforcement of civil debt. I hope that the proposals in that Bill make a more living reality of the new powers which we are giving the courts in this Bill.
I think that I should be in order in referring to enforcement to this extent. On page 52 of the Law Commission's Report No. 25, under the heading "Enforcement of Orders", the Commission discusses the various problems relating to the enforcement of orders in the foundation working paper on which this report is based. It says:
One of these remitting of arrears, has already been referred to, but there are a number of other outstanding questions. However, as we envisaged, these need to be carefully reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts"—
that is, the Payne Committee—
whose most detailed Report has recently been published. In any event, they could not appropriately be dealt with in the same legislation as that implementing the foregoing recommendations of this Report.
We have not got them in the Bill. We understand that, but I think that we should have a word from the right hon. and learned Gentleman if, with the leave of the House, he makes a short reply to this debate, as to whether the Government are dealing with enforcement of maintenance orders at the same time as they are dealing with enforcement of

civil debts generally. I think we need an assurance upon that.
I am not going through a sort of Committee stage exercise of commenting on most of the Clauses. I am sure that the House would get very weary if I did so, but I want to endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Clause 20, the abolition of the right to petition for restitution of conjugal rights, because that is quite an important change in the law. It is a very ancient remedy and it is one which one sometimes hears when women constituents come to my "surgeries" and say, "Can I get restitution?" They may not put it in precisely that term of art, but that is what they are getting at. They want their men to come back to them and they think that, if a court could help, the man would come back. But, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly said, experience shows that in fact a court order does not help to bring a man back in those circumstances. Therefore I think it was right to abolish the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
That is dealt with in Law Commission Paper No. 23 and, incredible though it seems, power has been given to the courts to refer to Law Commission Paper No. 23 which is five pages long in order to interpret Clause 20 of the Bill which is 2½ lines long and can only mean one thing—that the right of petition is abolished. Some brilliant and eminent men in our profession have been behind this proposal and I do not intend to wound, but this is arrant nonsense.
The Bill does not abolish actions for breach of promise of marriage. One of my hon. Friends came to me in the Lobby the other day and said that he thought it was a pity that the opportunity was being missed for abolishing them. I do not agree with him and I am glad that the Bill does not abolish them.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Is the right hon. and learned Member aware that there is a Private Member's Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor), which has had its Second Reading and which does that?

Sir D. Renton: I must confess to a failure! I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting me right. This enables me to save the time of the House, because


now I will not say what I was about to say.
In Part II of the Bill, under the uninviting heading of "Miscellaneous Provisions", there are six important Clauses. These Clauses introduce, each of them, what I would call important changes of principle, but somewhat detailed principle. They will require most careful consideration in Committee. Meanwhile, I must confess that in spite of the reasons given by the Law Commission in its 25th Report I have some doubt about the words in brackets in Clause 29.
They do not appear to be clearly explained in the notes to what is in Clause 28 of the draft clauses of the report. I hope they can be fully explained in Committee. I do not ask for an answer today. As a matter of drafting elegance I cannot see why there should be brackets there at all. I do not think brackets very often look right in a Bill anyway; they seem particularly inappropriate at that point.
Having given the Bill a general welcome, I wish to make a most vigorous protest about Clause 35(2). I will read it for the sake of the record. It says:
In ascertaining the meaning of any provision of this Act regard may be had"—
those are the operative words—
to the Proposal of the Law Commission for the Abolition of the Matrimonial Remedy of Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Law Corn. No. 23)".
I have already commented on that—
and to the Report of the Law Commission on Financial Provision in Matrimonial Proceedings (Law Com. No. 25).
My hon. Friends behind me have already pressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon this.
In spite of the quite lengthy criticism I am about to make of this subsection, I do not expect a reply from the Solicitor-General today. I hope that when he has heard all the arguments he will want to consider them, and to consider them very carefully. He ought to consult the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, and perhaps the Chairman of the Law Commission, about them. In those circumstances, I do not think it would be right for us to press him for a firm answer today. I hope he will give us an undertaking that he will consider

what we say and will consult them as I suggest.
We shall return to this matter in Committee. We shall explore it further then and we hope that by then the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be in a position to give us a favourable answer. This subsection is without precedent. It is the first time that a provision of this kind has come before this House. It introduces not only a new practice into the administration of justice, but a thoroughly undesirable one which reduces the authority of parliament, inflates the authority of those excellent people the Law Commission, and places it, as I shall try to show, in a sense above the judges.
Another objection is that this provision is certain also to lengthen the time taken in arguing and deciding a substantial proportion of cases which come before the courts and it will therefore increase the costs of litigation. Both the Law Society and the Bar Council have strongly objected to it. They have done so either because, or in spite of the fact that, it would put more money into the pockets of the legal profession and would do so at the expense of the public whether the cases are legally aided or not. Either the taxpayer will pay more through the Legal Aid Fund or the private litigant would pay more if he had costs awarded against him.
The whole question of interpretation of statutes was the subject of the Law Commission's 21st report, published last June. It had an appendix containing draft clauses, but no Bill has yet been presented to Parliament—speaking for myself I hope it never will be—based on those draft clauses. If a Bill is to be presented of a general kind or if we are to have provisions like those of subsection (2) of Clause 35 inserted in Bills, the important principle involved should first be debated in this House. We have had no chance of debating this matter until today on this specialised Bill dealing with family law.
At present, if this provision were not inserted, the judges would have to follow the ordinary rules and practice with regard to interpretation. The first matter they are required to consider is the meaning of the words used by Parliament in the statute which we have passed. In passing, I point out that that places a


heavy burden upon us and the parliamentary draftsmen who help us in trying to make these words clear. That is the first point: the words of the statute itself have to be considered.
If there is any doubt about the meaning of those words—but only if that is so—the judges may try to resolve it by referring to other statutes. Sometimes, it is even helpful, and it is in order, to refer to statutes which have been repealed, because one of the duties of the judges is to try to cure the mischief which Parliament is trying to cure. Sometimes, referring to a repealed statute will help in this and help to establish a contrast between the law as it was and the law as Parliament wants it to be.
It is permissible also to consider decided cases to find out the meaning of particular words, because over the years the courts have had to interpret almost every word in statutes at some time or other. Therefore, decided cases are helpful.
At present, when arguing about the meaning of a statute before the judge makes a decision—and it is always a decision of a point of law—counsel are not allowed to refer to the report of our debates nor, I think, to our purely formal Minutes of Proceedings. Also counsel are not allowed to refer to Reports of Royal Commissions, newspaper reports or any other material extraneous to the Statute Book and law reports.
Despise counsel being restricted in that way, we know that considerable time is taken up in the courts in interpreting statutes, and a good many appeals take place.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is not one of the difficulties which the Legislature has to face that we do not always make our meaning clear by the words we use? The gaming Acts were a good example of that. It is argued in many quarters that there should be some kind of explanatory memorandum, because we do not make our meaning clear.

Sir D. Renton: I have conceded that there are occasions when we do not make our meaning clear enough. That is why there has to be resort to other statutes and to decided cases so that the courts can find out what our meaning was. But we shall not make the question of interpretation easier by widely extending the

material to which counsel and judges may refer for guidance.
As Lord Halsbury said in the preface to the first edition of Halsbury's Laws of England:
The more words there are, the more words there are about which doubts may be entertained.
To take the point about explanatory memoranda to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has just referred, if we are to have to ask the judges to interpret not only the 50 pages or so of the Bill but also the 154 pages of the Law Commission Report No. 25, he and others in our profession will be at the edge of a gold mine. There is no reason, as far as I can see, why discussion should ever end.
The present case is a good example. In another place, a great many Amendments were made to the Bill during its passage, even some at Third Reading—the other place had power to make Amendments then, and it did so. Most of the Amendments made—I think that there were about 30—were, incidentally, moved by the Lord Chancellor himself. In the first place, time would have to be taken in court in finding out to what extent the notes on Clauses prepared by the Law Commission had, so to speak, fallen by the wayside during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. This Bill is not exactly as it was drawn up for our benefit by the Law Commission. It is a different Bill; it corresponds in some respects but not in all.
I am afraid that what may well happen if this provision stays in the Bill is that counsel on one side will deploy an argument interpreting one Clause based on, for example, two or three pages of the Law Commission's Report and try to argue what those pages mean. Counsel on the other side may argue that they mean something slightly different and that the Bill should be interpreted in another way. So the courts will be interpreting not only the Bill but the Law Commission Report. What will the judge do? He is not bound to take note of any of those arguments at all. The words of Clause 35(2) are merely submissive, "regard may be had", and he may say that he will not take any notice of the arguments. But it seems to me that, under the Bill as it is drawn, the judge could not stop counsel from trying to persuade him to have such regard, and,


therefore, a considerable amount of time would be taken up needlessly.
This really is a misguided departure. Although some truly brilliant men have supported the idea, I hope that they will have second thoughts about it because, in all sincerity, I believe that they are gravely mistaken.
I have spoken for much longer than I had intended, and I hope that the House will forgive me. But this is an important matter, coming to us for the first time. I must confess that I have not covered the question of interpretation anything like as fully as one might. It may be that in Committee we shall have to go into it even more fully than today. But I implore the Government, through the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, to bear in mind that both branches of the legal profession, the Law Society and the Bar Council, with all their experience are dead against it. I hope that there will be second thoughts about it.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Today is an important day for women. I regret that not one hon. Lady Member from either side is present at this debate. The occasion is important not only because of the Bill, but for another event. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity introduced into the House a Bill dealing with equal pay for women at work. Now, the House is considering some form of equality and justice for the wife at home. Both categories ought to be considered by the House, yet for decades we have talked about equality for women and done little about it. I am proud that this Government have a good record in the matter.
Shortly after I entered the House, in 1965, we dealt with a Bill entitled the Administration of Justice Bill, under which, at that early stage, we decided that a woman should have the right to a capital sum awarded to her in damages and she should control it. That was only a small change, but it was indicative of the way in which the Legislature and the law had regarded women almost as children—indeed, literally as children—since hitherto all a woman has had has

been maintenance, just as a child has had maintenance.
Another important step forward was the Bill introduced by my noble Friend Baroness Summerskill, the Matrimonial Homes Bill, which at least gives the deserted wife a right to remain either by herself or with her family in the matrimonial home. Before that Bill, it was possible for a husband not only to leave his wife but to sell the house over her head so that she and the children had nowhere to go. Now, she has a licence, though only a licence, to remain in the matrimonial home.
The present Bill goes a lot further. It recognises at last that, if there is a breakdown of the marriage, a wife is entitled to some capital reward for all the effort which she has put into the partnership of marriage, whether that has been a direct financial contribution by going out to work or a contribution by her household duties, her love and affection, her care of the children and her care of the home which has enabled the husband to go out to work, so that the assets are the assets of the family.
As I understand Clause 4, the court will not have power, in its discretion, to make any award of transfer of property, either real property or personal property. Thus, the wife may apply, and the court may grant her application, not only for a divorce but for the matrimonial home to be transferred to her—not just a licence but ownership of the matrimonial home and the furniture as well. There may be many instances in which it will be done.

Mr. Edward Lyons: That is only where husband and wife have been divorced, is it not? When the husband and wife are living apart, but there is no divorce, the wife has no right to have the property, the matrimonial home, for example, transferred to her.

Mr. Oakes: That is so; I took it that the House understood that I was speaking of the circumstances of divorce. I shall come in a moment to the Private Member's Bill with which both my hon. Friend and I had something to do when it came before us last year.
In considering Clauses 4 and 5, we must bear in mind that in the vast majority of households, when the


marriage unfortunately comes to an end, the whole capital assets of the family consist merely of the house and furniture and, perhaps, a motor car. All the other provisions about marriage settlements, and so on—the top of the cream, so to speak—are, though of some importance, not of general application, and they will not affect more than 0·1 per cent. of divorces coming before the courts. We are dealing here essentially with the matrimonial home.
It is right that the House should give power to the divorce judge to make an award of transfer of capital so that some recompense may be given to the wife for all the effort which she has put into the family. Let us remember that in many cases, even where a wife does not go out to work, it is her prudent housekeeping and her ability in the home which enables the husband to buy the house. If she were a wasteful woman, he would not, perhaps, be able to afford that type of house or, indeed, any house at all. Usually, these decisions are taken by the husband and wife together deciding whether they will buy a house, which house it will be, what furniture, and so on. When the marriage comes to an end, the divorce judge will now have power under Clause 4 to give some financial consideration to the wife.
Guidelines are provided by Clause 5. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General pointed out, the key provisions are paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (1). Paragraph (e) lays down that
the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family
shall be taken into account, and paragraph (f) deals with the question of pensions, among other things. This is an entirely new concept in our family statute law, and I warmly welcome it.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) introduced a Private Member's Bill which would have given far greater powers over family assets than the present Bill does. For example, it dealt not only with what happens to the assets of the family on the breakdown of the marriage but also with subsisting marriages. It dealt also with such questions as what happens on the death of

the husband. It went a long way towards the concept of community of property.
I understand that the Law Commission is now considering that aspect of community of property, but it is not covered by the present Bill. I do not object to that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, who introduced his Private Member's Bill in brilliant fashion, would not object. We have half a loaf, it is a good half-loaf, and so long as we know that the other half is in the oven with the Law Commissioners I for one do not complain and neither, I imagine, will my hon. Friend.
The other aspect of the Bill is that it sweeps away a lot of anachronisms in the law. Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the Solicitor-General referred to Clause 20 and the farcical procedure of restitution of conjugal rights. How can any judge order to live together two people who would hate the sight of one another? What possible use is it? If they are apart, they are the best judges of that, and they will not listen to any High Court judge sitting bewigged and telling them to live together.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can tell us how many cases there have been in the past 10 years in which a petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been brought before the court. The whole idea of such restitution is falling into abeyance in the public mind, and the Bill is right to abolish it as a petition which can be brought before the divorce court. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the breakdown of the marriage is a condition for divorce, and no High Court judge can force together again, without any legal powers, two people who do not want to live together.
Although I welcome many of the Bill's provisions, I should like clarification of certain matters. Clause 10 lays down a limit of time for the recovery of arrears of maintenance payments. Proceedings for recovery may not be brought
without the leave of that court if those arrears became due more than twelve months before proceedings to enforce the payment of them are begun".
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire was right to point out that one of the most important matters to be considered here, though we cannot consider it now because of the Long Title, is the enforcement of maintenance


claims. All hon. Members who have "surgeries" know that the problem brought before us so frequently is not the obtaining of an order but the obtaining of the money from the erring husband once an order has been made.
Under this provision it is difficult for a wife to bring proceedings, to bring a warrant, to bring the matter before the court and to collect arrears if she does not know where the husband is. She is the person who has the onus and the responsibility of finding him. It is very difficult for a wife, especially if she has a family, to search the length and breadth of the country to find where her husband has gone. Unless she can find out where he is, it is unlikely that she can issue proceedings in the High Court, the county court, or the magistrates' court for any process to be served on the husband.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The Clause says that she shall not be entitled to enforce the payment of arrears unless she obtains the leave of the court. There is no reason why in a proper case the leave of the court should not be granted.

Mr. Oakes: She can apply to the court for leave, but she may be deterred from doing so if she does not know where the husband is, and if the 12 months' time limit has run out she may not ask for the leave of the court. A husband may use this provision and disappear for a sufficient time and thereby clear some of his arrears.
So far as I know, this will apply to proceedings in the High Court and the county court, but not to proceedings in the magistrates' court. That will create difficulty, because many orders of the High Court and county court are transferred to the magistrates' court for enforcement. This is a matter which I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to consider, particularly with this question of enforcement in mind. Because of the stringent Long Title—and I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire about that—we cannot introduce Amendments on this issue, but it is a matter to be considered.
Clause 32, which says that on remarriage the order shall come to an end, is a wise provision. Once a wife—or the husband in the rare case of maintenance to the husband—remarries, she

is clearly no longer to be a charge on the former husband. It could wreck the second marriage if she were. However, there ought to be some obligation on the person who has an order, who is in receipt of benefit, to notify the court within a given time of the remarriage. It may be very difficult for collecting officers, magistrates' clerks and others, who must carry on mounting arrears and who will be totally unaware that one party has remarried.
It would be a simple matter to make an Amendment to require someone who had a matrimonial order to tell the court on remarriage, so that the other party and the court would know about it. The onus would not be on the person paying the order to find out and to apply for revocation of the order.
I have only one quarrel with Clause 28. It uses the word "improvement" and says that a person shall be entitled to money for the money's worth of improvements which she has made to a house. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me how closely the word "improvement" will be interpreted? If one is making a claim against income tax, for instance, an improvement may be putting in a new bathroom, but it would not be reroofing, painting and decorating. Both improvements and the maintenance of a house should be considered by the court when making a decision under Clause 28.
I entirely agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the effects of Clause 35(2), which empowers the court to look at the arguments which were before the Law Commission when making its report. I do so as a Member of the House. This is a constitutional matter of the utmost importance.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right in his argument about how much this provision will lengthen proceedings in the courts. What I fear is that there may be some inhibition on either another place or this House in amending a draft Statute which comes before us. That we must never allow to happen in any circumstances. We are the body which makes laws in this country. We can be advised and we can find the advice of the Law Commission or anyone else outside the House very useful; but we must never be in the


position of having in a Bill a Clause which may inhibit us from amending what has been suggested to us.
If the other place amended the Law Commission's Bill, and, therefore, some of its arguments, and if we amended some of the arguments, if the judge and counsel had recourse to discussing in court the arguments of the Law Commission, the logical extension of that must be that they would look into our proceedings, both here and in Committee, to decide what was in our minds when we varied from the Law Commission, and this could go on endlessly. The rule of law, that only Statute and decided cases can be the determinant in court for the interpretation of any word or Section, is good and right. Once we extend that into proceedings in this Chamber or in Committee, we shall set a dangerous precedent.
But I am more concerned with the possible inhibition that it could have on either the other place or this House in that it might make us fearful of making an Amendment because our interpretation would not be before the judge, whereas that of the Law Commission would.

Sir E. Errington: If there is an Amendment to a part of the Bill with which the Law Commission has dealt, would it not be a nonsense to expect a provision which had nothing to do with the Law Commission to be interpreted by the Commission?

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member is quite right. That is an important consideration. The judge would see the Law Commission's arguments on a matter which might not be in the Bill because we had changed the Bill so much.

Mr. Hooson: I have an open mind on this subject, but I should like the hon. Member to deal with one question. Surely judges would follow the normal rules of interpretation. When Parliament had not made its mind clear and in those circumstances the judge had any doubt, would he not be entitled to look at what was said in the Law Commission's report? Could he not be allowed in those circumstances, although perhaps in no others?

Mr. Oakes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman discussed this. What a judge may do in camera when deciding a case,

I do not know. He may look at the Law Commission's report and, for all I know, he may look at the reports of proceedings in the House—it is unlikely, but he may. What Clause 35 enables counsel to do is in open court to refer to the Law Commission's proposals when presenting his arguments to the court. My argument is that if we allow counsel to do that, to present arguments about what the Law Commission intended, to follow the logic of that procedure he would be able to present our arguments in Committee and in the Chamber. That would be wrong.
However, I do not want Clause 35(2) to take up too much time of the House, because this is a useful Bill. It is an important Bill for tens of thousands of families, and particularly for married women, who, at long last, are to have some capital reward, if their marriage unfortunately breaks down, for all the efforts that they have made throughout the years of the marriage to keep the home together, to look after the children, to feed the husband and clean the home and to provide comfort and often encouragement to the husband and, by their prudence, often to achieve the very ownership of the home.
This is a welcome Measure, especially as it comes at a time when other legislation is before the House about equal pay. The Government's record in this regard is one on which they are to be congratulated.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The last words of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) implied that the Bill is of undoubted benefit to all wives who are parties to divorce. That may happen in many cases, but it will not be invariably so. Indeed, the situation created by the Bill may affect adversely the women concerned.
The Bill is the result of the Divorce Reform Act. I opposed that Act because there were various matters in it with which I disagreed. However, the Government gave time to what was a Private Member's Bill and it went through. The Government promised that certain provisions of the Act would not come into effect until a Bill relating to financial provisions for women was enacted. They have now introduced this Bill in accordance with their undertaking.
To a large extent, the provisions of the Bill take us to cloud-cuckoo-land. The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 4, which deals with property and the resettlement of property, ante-nuptial and post-nuptial settlements. The number of people to whom that could refer must be about 0·5 per cent. of the couples whose marriages break up, and where that does happen they have experienced solicitors and counsel and the settlements are drafted and redrafted, as they have been for years.
What we and the judges and registrars have to consider are the other 99·5 per cent. of the cases. These are nearly always people living upon a weekly wage. They are nearly always tenants and not the owners of the houses they occupy, whether private or council owned. When dealing with that class of person, who may perhaps have had difficulty in maintaining a wife and family upon his earnings, although he has got by, the courts, under this Bill, will have to try to make those same earnings do for two families although they were barely enough for one.
I refer to two families advisedly, because when a marriage breaks up, one party certainly, and very often it is the man, has gone off with someone else. If it is the man, he perhaps has children to maintain by that other woman. It is a sad story, but all too frequent and that is the type of case which will affect the courts when they come to decide the matters contained in the Bill.
Clause 5(1) of the Bill refers to the duty of the court in exercising its powers under the maintenance provisions. It relates to
… the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit …
and states that the order shall put the parties in the same position in which they would have been had there been no proceedings. This refers to the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage, and for 99·5 per cent. of the cases such a restoration is a physical impossibility.
Other provisions say that no decree shall be pronounced until proper provision has been made for the divorced spouse and children to the satisfaction of the court. If that is equally applied at the same time, we shall be in the position of there being practically no

divorces at all. The result of what we are being asked to do will be to leave it to the common sense and discretion of the judges and registrars to work out what should be the proper order in any particular case.
Clause 5(1) states:
… and so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position in which they would have been if the marriage had not broken down …
An undefended divorce case goes though quickly but when it comes to making an order for someone to pay money for a large number of years, then the fight comes. If we are to consider the conduct of the parties in this context, we shall create the same sort of position as in a defended divorce action. The party seeking the order will say, "I behaved well". The other party will say unpleasant things about the former spouse's conduct in order to try to get the order reduced.
That sort of thing takes a great deal of time. The Bill will put a tremendous burden upon the judges and registrars who have to decide these questions as between the parties, always remembering that the person against whom an order is likely to be made is an unwilling payer and will naturally contest the whole thing as far as he can.
It puts upon husbands a greater burden than has existed up to the present. As a happily married man, I make no personal complaint, but there again, there is the question of remarriage. If a wife who obtains a divorce also obtains an order, it ceases upon her remarriage. That is common sense. But suppose she goes off to live with someone else and to all intents and purposes is married again, perhaps with children. In that case, the order must continue. Perhaps I am dealing with a Committee rather than a Second Reading point, but some provision should be made whereby, in such circumstances, if the wife has, in effect, remarried, there is provision for bringing the order to an end.
I turn now to Clause 35(2). I have read the Law Commission's Report No. 21. I have no wish to quarrel with the Commission. It is composed of people of the highest regard and respect. At the same time, I reserve the right to disagree with the Commission or any hon. Member of whichever party in this House who


expresses views here at the right and proper time. As far as I know, this report has not been discussed in the House at any time. I say that because, for reasons connected with surgery, I was absent from the House from the end of October until a few days ago.

Sir D. Renton: It has not been debated.

Mr. Doughty: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.
On page 51 of the report, the Law Commission has adopted different words from the Bill in one of its recommendations. The Law Commission says that the judges or anyone else interpreting the Statute should be entitled to refer to the Report. I may be wrong, but I am certain that this House will never consider that for one moment. It is a direct attack upon the right of Parliament to pass legislation. If the Law Commission or any other body can say, "We have issued a report and when someone interprets a Statute he can look up what we have said on the ground that the words in the Statute are a little ambiguous and, therefore, he will admit what the Law Commission or any other body has said."
The judges and registrars concerned cannot even look at our HANSARD reports of proceedings in this House or in Committee on this or any other Bill to see what was in the minds of the Government or of any hon. Member who spoke. But, under this proposal, they will be able to look at the Law Commission's report to interpret, although that report may have recommended things quite different from those contained in the Bill by the time it goes to Parliament.
I shall not labour what has been said and what will be said in the future. I ask the Solicitor-General to have a word with the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to point out that this is a novel procedure and a matter of the greatest constitutional importance because it is a direct attack upon the sole power of Parliament to pass legislation. No one else can pass legislation. Although perhaps regulations made under an Act are different, nevertheless, even these can come before the House again on a Prayer for annulment, and Parliament has complete control of them.
The Law Commission's Report No. 21 has never been debated yet in this House

and I hope that the Solicitor-General will point out to the Lord Chancellor that this proposition leads to great difficulties and that this is a highly controversial Clause in what is otherwise largely a non-controversial Bill.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: The point has quite properly been made that the Bill is the logical or illogical sequence of the Divorce Reform Act, and as one of those who, during the last two Sessions, has played a substantial part in getting that Measure on to the Statute Book, I feel a fair amount of vicarious responsibility for what is in this Bill.
I am sorry, in opening what I have to say, to come back to the Clause to which every other hon. Member who has spoken has referred—Clause 35, with the opening words of subsection (2):
In ascertaining the meaning of any provision of this Act …
We all know that statutes are notoriously difficult to interpret. We can all think of words and phrases which have been a substantial source of income to the legal profession. But, in my experience, this is the first time that any Bill has ever openly admitted in its text that its meaning may not be clear. This is the point from which the Bill starts. Our answer really must be that, when a Bill leaves this House, when it becomes a Statute, then it ought to be clear, and if it is not clear it should not be passed.
This is the point I want to make to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, because I think that to acknowledge that the meaning of a Statute may not be clear is a sad departure to have to make. Apart from that, I spend a fair amount of my time in this House on the Joint Consolidation Committee whose task is to consolidate statutes, and we congratulate ourselves that we are saving the lawyers of the land the necessity of ploughing through a number of statutes and making it necessary for them to look only at one.
It is a bit ironic if, on a Wednesday of one week we were to spend the time clearing up a Statute and on another day we passed Measures which called upon the legal profession to look at more paper work so as to discover the meaning of a Measure. It is dangerous precedent and I hope that my right hon. and learned


Friend will look again at this Clause and consider whether it is absolutely necessary. I hope that he will ask himself this simple question: would it not be simpler, instead of referring to the Law Commission's report, simply to make the Statute clear? If that was done there would be no need for Clause 35(2).
Clause 31 provides that where a judicial separation has taken place and intestacy has arisen, the order of judicial separation shall operate as at the death of what would have been the surviving party. I consider this Clause to be absolutely right. All of us in practice know quite well that a spouse who has been separated and has disappeared for many years—perhaps never paid any maintenance—upon the death, intestate, of the other partner, turns up with great regularity and speed. It almost seems the only time in their life that they have ever bothered about the spouse—when they have died intestate.
It is wrong, when there has been an order of judicial separation, that on intestacy the spouse who has caused the order of judicial separation to take place should be treated as a husband or wife who has not had such an order made.
It is also right that where a separation order has been made in a magistrates' court it should have the same operation as an order of judicial separation. What concerns me is whether the Clause goes far enough. In the magistrates' court there are many maintenance orders made which are not separation orders. The parties never come together, they may be separated for many years, but they are not separation orders, they are simply maintenance orders. I would hope that when the Bill goes into Committee consideration will be given to the question whether this Clause should be widened even further so that maintenance orders likewise should have the effect of separation orders.
There is no doubt that the Bill will bring to wives, where marriages have broken down, a substantial measure of justice which has been due to them for a very long time. We would be deceiving ourselves if we did not acknowledge that we have not yet solved the problem where there is not enough money to go around. We are dealing here with cases

where there are assets. We all know that in the vast majority of cases there are no assets to argue about. Let us keep our feet on the ground. We are bringing justice where there are assets, but where there are no assets, the vast majority of cases, we are not making a great deal of difference.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will eventually be placed upon the Statute Book. I repeat that we have not begun to solve the real problem in matrimonial breakdowns.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) when he virtually said that when there is insufficient money to go around the problem is insoluble. This House would be deceiving itself if it thought that it was legislating for people in those circum stances. It is as well to recall all the powers which already reside in the courts to order financial provisions for spouses. Where people are very well advised, and there is a considerable amount of money in the family, there is often very little difficulty about the matter.
The great difficulty comes when it is sought to enforce these smaller orders. Here, I must disagree with what I thought to be the implied criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) when he referred to the power of the courts to hold up a divorce. This is a very important power given under the Bill. If a party is anxious to obtain a divorce—and we in the House have made divorce very much easier—but the other party to the marriage is concerned more about security, the fact that the divorce can be held up is like a sword of Damocles over the head of the man or woman who seeks an early divorce. He has to make adequate provision for the other spouse, to the satisfaction of the court. This is an important matter; an important safeguard.
No one so far seems to have adverted to the fact that not only does the Bill give important rights to wives against husbands, but also gives important rights to husbands against wives. It is an important step forward in the acknowledgement of the equality of the sexes. We have all taken it for granted in the debate so far that it is the wife who has the rights


against the husband. On my reading of the Bill it seems that the husband equally has the same rights against the wife.
There are one or two queries which are perhaps rather Committee points, but which I would like to put to the Solicitor-General. I agree that in the majority of cases it is right that the right of maintenance should come to an end on the remarriage of a spouse, but I am not convinced that it is right in all cases. Let us take, for example, the case of a wife who has been married to a fairly rich husband for, say, 20 years. She has children, away at school, probably expensive schools—the way of life of the family is consistent with the wealth of the husband. Then the husband peremptorily puts the wife away, as it were and engages in another affair and the marriage effectively ceases.
The discarded wife agrees to have divorce proceedings and is awarded maintenance. Then she finds life rather lonely and decides that she will not live alone for the rest of her life. She marries a man, in much humbler circumstances. She still has custody of the children and they are still maintained by the first husband in a certain way. Is it right that that wife, even on remarriage, should be deprived of the rights of maintenance against her first husband? This is not a case that arises very often, but one that sometimes arises. I am not convinced that it is right to deprive the court of the power to order maintenance for a wife in such circumstances even on her remarriage. It may be just in some circumstances, which I agree would be few, that she should have those rights of maintenance even on remarriage.
I entirely concur with the remarks of the right hon and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and I would like to join in his congratulations to the Solicitor-General, and in his welcome 40 the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his recovery.
Now for a further query to the Solicitor-General. It is sometimes found that among the assets in a marriage are pension rights and a gratuity payable upon retirement of a husband. Let me put a theoretical case. There is a husband earning a fair amount, but he spends it all; he virtually has no assets,

but is entitled to a very considerable pension. His wife is entitled to a widow's pension if he dies and he is also, on retirement, which may be at 60, entitled to a considerable gratuity under an insurance policy paid by the firm in respect of him.
His assets will be completely different when he retires at the age of 60. Let us suppose that he has been married for 25 years but that at the age of 50 he goes away with another woman and his wife is left. She takes an action for maintenance, and gets it but the husband dies. Should there not be a means of enabling that wife to get the widow's pension, or, upon the retirement of her husband, to get a share of the gratuity? In the theoretical case I put forward, it is the main asset of the husband. I do not think that this kind of situation has been fully explored.
When I read the Bill I did not think that there was provision for the kind of circumstances that I have mentioned. The Solicitor-General and the Government will surely have regard to the fact that nowadays firms very often provide for people in this way—a substantial gratuity and a pension at 60 or 65.
What has aroused the greatest interest in this debate is Clause 35(2). I have an open mind on this question. It seems that the Government have perhaps introduced this Clause to test the reaction of the House. It is an experimental Clause, and from the way in which the Solicitor-General introduced it, with very great care, he did not give the impression that he was his usual happy self in suggesting that the House should accept it. My immediate reaction on reading the Clause was the enormous presumption that Parliament would not change the Bill very much and that the recommendations of the Law Commission were therefore to be accepted in toto.
The very insertion of this Clause raises important matters which it is time that the House considered. The first is the relationship of this House and the Law Commission. I am entirely in favour of the Commission; it was one of the best innovations of this Government. But we have not yet explored what should be the relationship between it and this House. When we do this in depth we might change our procedures. There is


a good deal to be said for having a general debate in the first instance, without a Bill, on the broad aims of the legislation we seek to enact. Having had, possibly with the aid of a report of the Law Commission, a proper debate along those lines we could pass a resolution which approved a certain line of thinking and ask the Law Commission to provide the Bill which satisfied our requirements.
It may be that in time we shall come to this kind of procedure. What do we do in the meantime? The hon. Member for Coventry, South was right. Parliament should always pass Acts which are clear and which can be easily understood by everyone. Alas, every day of the week Parliament is passing Measures which become law and which are not clear. Let me take as an example the Gaming and Wagering Act, 1963. It is interesting to read what right hon. and learned Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen said at that Dispatch Box about the meaning of certain provisions and then to see how the courts have interpreted them. What Parliament thought it was doing was quite different from what the courts said Parliament had done.

Mr. William Wilson: My point is that in the Act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred Parliament thought that it was clear. In this Bill we seem to be acknowledging that the Bill is not clear.

Mr. Hooson: Parliament is surely learning by experience. Parliament thought that it was clear and it certainly was not. That is why I am not prepared to dismiss out of hand a provision of the kind provided in Clause 35(2).

Sir E. Errington: Would it not be extremely difficult if, say, the Finance Act was interpreted by the Law Commission?

Mr. Hooson: No one suggests that the Law Commission should interpret the Bill, but reference should be made to Law Commissions' reports in interpreting the Clauses in a Bill.

Sir D. Renton: It seems to follow from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it will not be enough to obtain a copy of the Bill from the Queen's Printer. If we wish to under-

stand this important Measure affecting family law, we shall also have to obtain a copy of the 154-page Report of the Law Commission—and that is not all, because we shall need to have the Minutes of Proceedings of the House to see to what extent the Commission's draft clauses had been varied during the Measure's passage through both Houses.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing me justice. If I had to vote now on this provision in the Bill, I would vote against it. But I am not prepared to dismiss it out of hand.
This matter must be considered with great care by the House. This is an experimental Clause and we should consider its merits as well as its demerits. The courts are always coming across the difficult situation in which Parliament intended to do one thing and the courts find it has done another. This is an argument for much greater clarity in Bills. But we are passing so much legislation that the House pays little or no attention paid to Clauses which may be very important later when the courts interpret them.

Dame Irene Ward: Is it not a fact that in Parliament, when Questions are asked or debates take place, Ministers often say that it depends on the court's interpretation of the matter being discussed. This has happened time and again. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, quite right in anticipating this difficulty.

Mr. Hooson: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady's support. May I say how glad the House is to see her present, as the first hon. Lady to attend this important and historic debate. What she says is quite right.
Clearly, as the Solicitor-General explained, the more the Bill is amended in the House the less valid is the Law Commission's report. Suppose that a judge said, "I do not know what Parliament intended. I am in doubt about Parliament's intention from the wording of the legislation" and Parliament has in that section followed the Law Commission's recommendation. In those circumstances, there would be considerable validity in allowing the judge to refer to the Law Commission's report openly as


opposed to surreptitiously to discover what was in the minds of those who initiated the legislation.
I should vote against the Clause at present—I am not sure that the Solicitor-General, untramelled by responsibilities, would not do so, too—because I do not think that we have had sufficient discussion about the value of interpretive memoranda attached to a Bill, which is what, in effect, reference to a Law Commission's report would be. But I am sure that in time, as legislation becomes more and more complicated, we shall have to refer, not only to the legislation, but to some kind of background document such as a Law Commission's report.
To do that properly we would have to change our rules of procedure. There would be a good deal to be said for the Law Commission amending its own memorandum after the Third Reading and for the House to consider it. But there great value in introducing this Clause at this stage so that when the Committee discusses the Bill it can consider this provision in far greater depth than we have been able to do before.
By Third Reading, we might not be encumbered with this Clause drafted in this way. I have an open mind about it. If were called upon to vote on it now, I would, on balance, vote against it. However, I am generally in favour of the trend which the Clause indicates.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: It is about time that we rescued the debate from some of the more legalistic arguments which seem to predominate. Having a partial interest, I have a respect for lawyers which many people do not share. I should like to bring back to the House some of the air of expectancy, glamour and lightheartedness which perhaps prevailed a year and three days ago when I moved the Second Reading of my Matrimonial Property Bill. I hope that the House will give me some indulgence because, having promoted the Bill and having had the substantial support of hon. Members of all parties and later having withdrawn it, I have a duty to explain what was expected and how this Bill ranks with our expectations.
The Bill then was the Matrimonial Property Bill, later called the "Bishop" Bill or the "His and Hers" Bill. On

Second Reading, I tried to give hon. Members a kind of parliamentary carnation to put in their buttonholes and to bring to the Chamber some of the magic sound of the church bells which ring out when many people get married. We can assess the Bill's merits in aiming to deal with some of the tragedies of a marriage which has not worked out if we have some idea of the standards, hopes and aspirations of a happy young couple when they get married.
On that occasion, I reminded the House that since 1662 millions of bridegrooms have gone to the altar and willingly, before relatives and friends, promised to endow their wives with all their worldly goods, or, since the 1928 and 1966 legislation, to share their worldly goods. We must consider legislation of this sort against those high hopes and expectations. When we consider that millions of bridegrooms promise quite freely on marriage to endow their wives with their worldly goods or to share them, there can be no doubt that under the present law they immediately bestow a second-rate legal status on married women because society is inadvertently, but nevertheless outrageously, guilty of a flagrant violation of the Trade Disputes Act. The Bill makes a change in that respect.
On 24th January, 1969, we had a 54-vote majority. The House should bear in mind two points about that occasion. First, the House was anxious to provide further safeguards to the Divorce Bill, which was then before Parliament, although the House was right in demanding these measures regardless of that Bill. Secondly, the House expressed an opinion in support of the Bill's principle that there should be equal matrimonial rights and that this was just.
The debate a year ago followed the spontaneous national upsurge of interest and support, not only for a review of matrimonial legislation as a whole, but for the need to take a new and urgent look at the status of women in society. The debate has gone on ever since. In the interim, I have received over 2,000 letters from women and men in all parts of the country. The second-rate legal status of women towards the end of the 20th century has astounded me. Therefore, quite massive reforms are called for in the near future.
In case anyone thinks that I have a bias in favour of women in this matter, let me say that I am also a magistrate and there have been occasions when women have come before me for separation and have said, "After 20 years, my husband has left me." I have looked at the woman and could not imagine how the husband had stayed so long. Therefore, the Bill, which is one of equity for both sides of the marriage, is not weighted particularly in favour of women. We have an enormous way to go to give women anything like parity, justice and equity in marriage.

Dame Irene Ward: As a co-magistrate, I would not judge a man simply by looking at him. Surely, the hon. Member does not decide whether a woman is a good or bad, a tiresome or a happy wife, merely by looking at her. He is an odd man if he can sum up as quickly as that when sitting on the bench.

Mr. Bishop: I am grateful for that intervention. I was referring not only to the physical look, but the legal and the matrimonial look. I have some experience of this because my wife is also a magistrate, although we have a legal bar from sitting together, a very rare restriction. I am sure, to be imposed on a husband and wife.
I mention these points because the House must be influenced by the great weight of feeling which has been building up over the years in favour of change. One welcomes the changes which are taking place and I suggest that many of the delays in getting equal pay implemented, for instance, in the past have been due to our attitude to women in society. One hopes that this will change.
I have mentioned that the Measure which I introduced on the same lines last year had all-party support. The sponsors came from all parties in the House of Commons. Therefore, the credit for what was done must be shared between all those concerned. A number of organisations nationally were involved in the work of producing the Bill and in the efforts afterwards.
There is no doubt that the country is anxious that from today we shall give women a greater measure of justice. I welcome the Bill not only because it provides a tidying-up process of this

branch of the law, but because it takes into account for the first time, by putting it on the Statute Book, an acknowledgment of the wife's contribution to the marriage, as Clause 28 states,
in money or in money's worth".
Having said that, however, I do not think that the Bill goes far enough by any means in meeting the demands of the millions of people, including the many thousands of women and children, who will be affected by it. We are grateful for this half a loaf, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) called it, but there is still a long way to go. We are by no means satisfied that we have gone as far as we could at present.
One hopes that the further report of the Law Commission on the root and branch reform of family property envisaged in the Law Commission's Report No. 25 will be before the House very soon. I and, I am sure, many other hon. Members would like to see legislation in the present Parliament enforcing some of the recommendations when they come before the House.
The Bill, however, introduces some important aspects and I welcome it for that reason. I should refer briefly to a meeting I had with the Lord Chancellor, the Law Officers, Professor Gower and Sir Leslie Scarman which resulted in the withdrawing of my Bill. As various hon. Members have from time to time asked what was agreed, I think that I have a duty to quote the letter from the Lord Chancellor so that it may go on record and we can see briefly what was the position before this Bill came forward.
On 21st February last year, the Lord Chancellor wrote, to me under the heading "Matrimonial Property Bill", to say:
I am writing to confirm what was agreed at the meeting yesterday which you, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Eric Lubbock and Mr. Awdry had with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Sir Leslie Scarman, Professor Gower and other members of the Law Commission staff and me.
He went on to say:
Sir Leslie Scarman agreed that the Law Commission would be able to report before the end of July on their proposals for matrimonial financial relief. The Divorce Reform Bill contains a provision that it will not come into effect until an order is made by the Lord Chancellor.


Finally, he wrote:
Without of course committing the Government on its programme of legislation, which I know you would not expect me to do at this stage, I agreed that if you withdrew the Matrimonial Property Bill I would undertake not to make such an order until legislation, based on the Law Commission's proposals, had been introduced in the next Session.
The House knows that when I met the Lord Chancellor and the other Law Officers to do a deal, if one wants to put it that way, I was accompanied by members of the three parties in the House. I insisted on this because I said that, unless all three were willing for me to withdraw the Bill, I would not do so because the House had, by all-party support, given the Bill a 54-vote majority. I want the House to know exactly where we stood.
My sponsors and I asked that legislation should be available in this Parliament to deal with the division of matrimonial property at the time of divorce, the need for the courts to have extended powers to award lump sum settlements and maintenance beyond the normal age limits, for a generalisation of powers to order settlement of property, to make orders for a husband and wife to settle property for the benefit of the wife and children and to vary settlements, and most important of all, for the contribution of the wife as well as the husband to be taken into account. We also asked that such legislation should come before the House before the Divorce Reform Bill became law so as to safeguard the interests of those who would be affected by divorce proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Prime Minister and the Government, agreed to put in writing the letter which I have read and which, in due course, I received. There is no secret about this letter because reference has been made to it elsewhere, but I appreciate that the House has enabled me to put it into our records.
The Bill includes much of what we asked for when we met the Lord Chancellor, but we can be fully satisfied only when we get legislation for the real root and branch reform of family property laws. But the Law Commission and the Bill seem to have been more concerned with tidying up, important though that is, and less able to deal at present with the

main question of the right of spouses to property acquired during the marriage.
The Bill deals in Part I with the financial provisions and the custody of children, and I welcome the aim that there shall be no discrimination between husband and wife in this important matter. I also believe that Clause 4 is important in so far as it gives power to the courts to order the transfer of property in the interests of either party or in the interests of the children and also enables the courts to make variations of settlements.
Clause 5 lays down some of the factors which must be taken into account when the court is considering the settlement of property, the ordering of maintenance and the making of lump sum settlements. It rightly asks the court to take into account earning capacity, the property and financial resources which either party has or is likely to have, the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties, and the standard of living enjoyed before the breakdown of the marriage.
Reference has been made to that aspect by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who queried the ability of any courts to ensure that the standard of living shall continue as before the breakdown of marriage. This is important, because we must have regard to this in any settlement, in order to see that those who went into marriage very hopefully are able to maintain their standards as far as possible and that the interests of the children shall continue as they were.
One aspect to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred was the question of pension rights, and although Clause 5 suggests that the courts will have powers to make sure that pension rights are preserved in various ways one wonders how one can order a husband without substantial means to make sure that the State pension rights, which may cease when he remarries, is guaranteed to his former wife. This is one of the problems being tackled, not in this Bill, but in other legislation, to make sure that women are required by law to be insured in their own right, and their pension rights assured, whether or not they marry and whether or not their marriages break up.
I would certainly have liked to see some requirement that the courts should start the division of the assets from the basic principles of equity and only make variation according to circumstances. I would very much like to see an Amendment to Clause 5 in this respect, because while one appreciates the other aspects which the courts are asked to take into account I think that starting from the basis of equity and then making variations very often is a very good principle to have in this legislation.
I am also very concerned when the courts are to be directed to take into account the aspects of Clause 5(1)(a), including the financial resources likely to be available to either party after divorce, for while magistrates and others concerned with this problem must have regard, as we do, to the ability of a husband to pay for maintenance it ought to be underlined that on divorce or separation the main duty of a husband is, or should be, to his first wife and family. I think we should do nothing to encourage the impression, that the husband who is either divorced or separated can run around the country getting involved with other commitments, either in marriage or outside of marriage, living with his new wife or another woman, and supporting his new family, and can come back to the court and say to the judge or the magistrates that he cannot therefore continue his obligations to his first wife and family and that the State must assume responsibility for them.
Those of us who have to take into account the liabilities and the obligations of someone in that situation ought to have regard to the man's first priority, and that is his first dependants, his wife and children. These are important aspects which must be considered in the Bill.
Clause 6 refers to wilful neglect and to the situation of the wife or husband wilfully neglecting to pay reasonable maintenance. Legislation going back a long time refers to "wilful" in this connection. I would ask that that term "wilful" be reconsidered on this occasion, because it seems to me that it is putting an undue onus or responsibility—on the wife, very often, although it could refer to the husband. A wife is often in a situation of great hardship in having

to ensure that wilful neglect has taken place.
It may be recalled that in the National Assistance Act, 1948, which in substance re-enacted the Vagrancy Act, 1824, Sections 42 and 43 do not refer to "wilful" neglect but merely to "neglect", and although it is not a matter for debate at this stage, of course, but later in Committee, possibly, I would refer to an article in the Modern Law Review for January, 1960, vol. 23, page 1, which went into the case history here. I think it referred to the Tulip v. Tulip case. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at this aspect to see if the word "wilful" could come out of this Bill in the same way as it disappeared from the National Assistance Act, 1948. This would make the position very much easier for those involved in such proceedings.
Clause 28, I think, is most important, because it seems to me that for the first time, as I said earlier, we are putting into our legislation some obligation on the courts to have regard to the contributions of both parties "in money or money's worth", and this was one of the features of the Bill which I introduced last year. The Clause could result in either the husband or the wife having more than a half share of the assets, for it states that either party can acquire an interest where they have made a substantial contribution to the improvement of real or personal property. There may be some doubt about the legal meaning of "substantial" and I will not get involved in argument on that today, but a party can acquire a share or enlarged share as a result of it.
I should like the Government to consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West about the need to have the word "maintenance" in the Clause so that the courts will not only take into account the improvement of the property by either partner but also improvement and maintenance of the property, because one can well imagine a situation where a wife has been very diligent at home, helping with the redecoration of the house and the improvement of the house in that way, and yet at the end of the day will have very little recompense for all the work, time and money she expended in improving the


house by way of maintenance. I appreciate that there may be a problem in relation to the Finance Acts where the situation may be rather limited by the present financial legislation.
When we refer to the contribution in money or in money's worth we come up against the problem which arises from the fact that most wives have no idea whatsoever of what contributions their husbands make to their marriage. As we know, very few women indeed know exactly what their husbands earn, and that is very often a closely guarded secret. I am still awaiting observations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he will consider requiring wives to countersign their husbands' income tax forms and so get to know what the husbands are putting into the kitty.
I can see a real problem at the time of a divorce if, in the court, a husband who for many years has been telling his wife, "I earn only £20 a week", says, because the court must have regard to the contributions of the parties and awards him rather less of a share of the property than he expects, "I have been earning £30 or £40 a week for the same period of years and I demand that I have a much greater share of the assets of the marriage." This will surprise the wife very much indeed and, indeed, of course, confuse the court. I believe that facts and figures about her husband's income are vital statistics which every married woman ought to have.
Clause 35 refers to the Law Commission's Report No. 25. A great deal has been said this afternoon about this Clause and I do not want to go into it any further myself except to say that I share the grave concern which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have on this aspect. The Clause also refers to the powers of the court to award maintenance beyond the age of 21. This seems to be in contradiction of Clause 8 which says that the limit for awarding maintenance shall be 18. I see no reason at all why there should be any limit whatsoever, because one can imagine a situation during a marriage in which there are children who have ability to become doctors, for instance, and to have university education, and training in hospital. If during the marriage a child is qualified for that education at the age,

say, of 25, I see no reason whatsoever why the courts should not order the parents, after divorce, if they have the means, to maintain the child so that the expectancy of education and training, and the career prospects, of the youngster can continue.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that we should also enable the courts to order maintenance to continue after remarriage of the wife when the circumstances are such that the husband has the means of continuing the level or standard of living to which she had been accustomed before the divorce took place.
Much more could be said about the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill, but I have said enough to indicate that I welcome the Bill. We have gone a long way towards getting what we want. There is still a long way to go before we can ensure that, while men are landing on the moon, women have their rightful place in the sun.
This is the age of protest, the age when people demonstrate against injustice and discrimination. We are thankful for the enormous contribution made by women to our societiy in the home, in the office, in the factory and in the worlds of art, music and of learning. Let us be aware of the duty that we owe them. The Law Commission, which has carried out splendid work, should be reminded once again of the urgency of bringing forward to the House proposals which will have the opportunity to be translated in legislative terms at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, if the time arrives when the House tires of its reforming zeal, it should be stimulated by a letter which I received from one of my correspondents, in which she says:
I am very interested in your Matrimonial Property Bill, and with my husband's approval I recently took in a woman lodger in order that we may more easily pay off the mortgage on our house. But already I can see that gleam in his eye.
She ends by saying:
The best of luck to your efforts
On that happy note, I remind the House that we still have a long way to go before women in those circumstances can be satisfied that things are going well for them.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) that perhaps we have spent rather too much time in discussing Clause 35(2) of the Bill rather than the Bill's merits. I also had the honour to speak in the debate on the hon. Gentleman's own Matrimonial Property Bill when I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. In looking at the Division list I see that both the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and I abstained in the Division. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that no self-respecting lawyer could possibly support the Bill as then drafted.
I feel bound to add that a further look at the Division list shows that all the other self-respecting lawyers voted against the Bill at that stage. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and myself were about the only two lawyers who abstained.
Before coming to the merits of the Bill, I wish to say something on Clause 35(2). I have sympathy with the idea behind the Clause. I know from past legislation, such as the Betting and Gaming Act and numerous other Acts, that we do not necessarily legislate in the way we intend to do. I suggest there should be an Explanatory Memorandum to which the courts could refer. In advance of discussing the controversial issues in the Law Commission paper on the interpretation of statutes, I am convinced that it is wrong for the House to attempt to legislate in this way by referring to the Law Commission Report, which may have no relation to the Bill as it eventually leaves the House.
I hope that this matter having been aired today, the Solicitor-General will agree, in view of the unanimous criticism of the proposal, to withdraw the Clause as it stands from the Bill, even if the whole question of interpretation of statutes has to be looked at at some other stage.
I now turn to the merits of the Clause. The reason I abstained on the Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Newark last year was that as a lawyer I felt that I could not support it. But the whole of my sympathy was with the underlying principle of that Bill. That appeared to be an attempt to obtain a fairer and more

even distribution of property between the partners to a marriage on a breakdown. I feel that this Bill as proposed by the Law Commission more effectively succeeds in achieving this aim than did the somewhat wider and in many ways unworkable scheme under previous proposed legislation.

Mr. Bishop: I was accused, or at least my draftsman was accused, of bad drafting in my Bill. I wonder whether some of the accusations made then were a little less in their intensity than those which have been made on the present Bill this afternoon. However, I appreciate the support of the hon. Member for the principle behind the Measure.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but since he referred to that matter I thought I should say why, on that occasion, I abstained and yet, on this occasion, support this Bill.
I particularly welcome the provisions of Clause 4, which appears to achieve its ends by allowing a court, on the breakdown of a marriage, a wide discretion on the transfer of property. We must accept that where real difficulties arise over the wife's situation on a breakdown of marriage, the Married Women's Property Act was concerned purely with property or proprietary rights in the assets of the marriage and failed completely to take into account the non-financial contribution made by the wife to the marriage. That Act gave no adequate powers to the courts to transfer to that person a share in the assets.
In this instance Clause 4, by allowing a transfer of property at the discretion of the court, enables the court to take into account the non-financial contributions made by the wife and, therefore, attempts to achieve the aim of greater equity between the parties on a breakdown of marriage.
I welcome the fact that the Bill rightly leaves this matter to judicial discretion. The circumstances of the breakdown of a marriage are so complex and varied that if any system is on the one hand to be fair to the blameless husband whose wife walks out on him five weeks after their marriage and, on the other, fair to the blameless wife whose husband goes off after they have lived together for 25 years because he has suddenly become


attracted by a younger woman, it must leave wide discretion to the court to do what it thinks fit. The present Bill tackles that problem in the right way both by giving that discretion and then in Clause 5 by laying down guidelines.
I should like to take up one matter which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who referred to the pamphlet produced by the Conservative Party. I sat on the committee which considered that pamphlet, which was called "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex". Certainly, the pamphlet, if not its title, received a universally good press. Much of the material put forward in it has been accepted by the Government, and, indeed, was approved of in the report of the Law Commission. This can be seen in the guidelines which are recommended.
We suggested in the pamphlet that in making an equitable division of property on a breakdown the judicial discretion must be wide, and we laid down various guidelines. One of the matters to be taken into account was the duration of the marriage. I now notice that the Government, perhaps having considered our pamphlet, have added the ground of duration of marriage to the other grounds in the Bill, although it was not a ground which was recommended by the Law Commission. Stress was laid in that pamphlet on the contribution made by the parties to the welfare of the family, including the contribution of the wife in looking after the home and caring for the family.
I believe, as was argued in our pamphlet, that in the matter of family assets the principle of equality might be the correct starting point for any division. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) that in the vast majority of marriages the assets with which people are most concerned comprise the home, the furniture and the motor car. Speaking purely for myself, since I know that on these benches this is a highly controversial view, I believe that there is strong ground for the principle of equality in the division of these assets.
As for the other assets which may have been acquired during a marriage, guidelines should be laid down to enable a

judge to take into account the work put into the house by a wife. If she is forced to give up the standard of living to which she has been accustomed on the husband's income, and it must be remembered that often a wife has enabled him to build up his assets and to expand his business, she should have some share in those assets if the marriage eventually breaks down.
For these reasons I welcome the Bill. It gives recognition to the proper place of a wife in the 20th century since it attempts to look upon marriage as a partnership. It shows that for the first time we are getting away from the situation that the decision as to whether she has any right to property depends on her willingness to earn. We are looking, instead, to the wife's contribution to the home. This Bill is a far better Bill than the much more grandiose scheme of community of property, with its many practical difficulties, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Newark.
There are one or two other short comments which I wish to make about some of the remaining Clauses. I do not altogether agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I think that it is right that an order for the maintenance of a wife or husband should end on remarriage. The fact that it should terminate then will avoid the case which so often arises where a husband continues to pay long after he need because he does not realise that the remarriage of his former wife entitles him to go back to the court and ask for the order to be dismissed. It is equally important that Clause 11 allows for the repayment of money which may have been paid in those circumstances after the entitlement to maintenance has ceased. I also welcome Clause 28, which is concerned with the matrimonial home and improvements to it.
I have one point on Clause 29, which deals specifically with the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. I make no point on the highly technical words of the Clause, which I do not pretend to understand. However, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, before the Committee stage, he might consider whether, in practice, the Matrimonial Homes Act gives to a wife adequate rights of protection of her occupation of the matrimonial home.
When we were doing our study into discrimination in the law against women, we found that one drawback was that it was necessary for a wife to register her right as a charge if her occupancy was to continue. There is a lot to be said for considering some means whereby the matrimonial home might become registered as such in the Land Registry. Any would-be purchaser would have notice that the right of transfer or sale belonged equally to the husband and wife and that the husband could not sell behind his wife's back.
I regret that nothing further has been attempted in the Bill to improve the position over the enforcement of the payment of maintenance. When the hon. Member for Newark referred to the fact that wives often do not know their husbands' earnings, if I may say so, it is not so much the complaint that a wife does not know. Surely the discrimination under our present tax system is that the wife is bound to inform her husband about her earnings because he is responsible for completing a return and paying the tax. However, there is no equivalent duty on him to convey the same information to his wife. That is a discrimination which could be done away with easily by accepting the sensible proposals to tax the incomes of husbands and wives separately. However, that is outside the scope of this Bill.
This Measure is a move forward in achieving the principle of a fairer distribution of property. It recognises further and more fully the proper position of women in society today and I believe that it will be welcomed by the women's organisations. However, many points will have to be looked at in Committee.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I always listen with respect to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), and I have sympathy with the point of view adumbrated by him and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about what should happen to an existing maintenance order on a remarriage. Under Clause 30(6), if a woman remarries, the magistrates' court order of which she had the benefit stops even if the remarriage is a void marriage. For example, if a woman is forced to marry again under duress, by, if she

remarries, fraudulent mistake, or it proves to be a bigamous marriage which comes to an end within weeks as soon as the fact that it is void becomes apparent, none the less, the order payable by her previous husband comes to an end under the Bill. In my view, that should be looked at again. One could almost imagine a husband persuading a friend of his to ask his former wife to remarry, even bigamously, so that her right to maintenance should cease.
There are many features in the Bill which I welcome. It is always annoying to lawyers and unfair to litigants that a wife or husband starting proceedings over the matrimonial property after the decree absolute should have to proceed in Chancery. There is nothing more frightening to a common law lawyer than Chancery. It is uncharted territory. Under the Bill, for the first time, one can bring such proceedings after the decree absolute in the county court. They are simpler, cheaper and more easily understood. That can be done for a period of three years after the decree absolute. My only doubt about it is whether three years is enough, because, so often, the wife and husband do nothing about the matrimonial home for many years. I suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend might consider extending that period to five years, to prevent the inconvenience which will otherwise be caused in certain cases.
However, those are Committee points. I am delighted to see the principle in the Bill that the court may transfer property from one spouse to another in accordance with the justice of the case. What perturbs me is that this may only occur when there has been a divorce. If a wife does not wish to divorce her husband and, because five years have not elapsed, he cannot attempt to divorce her, she cannot obtain a transfer of the matrimonial home to herself. In other words, Clause 4 is an incentive to a wife to divorce her husband if she wants the matrimonial home. If she proceeds on the grounds of wilful neglect to maintain as an alternative to divorce, that gives the court the right to give her a lump sum, but it gives the court no right to redistribute property such as the matrimonial home.
If a husband wants to make his wife divorce him, all that he has to do, in


view of the weakness about enforcement, is not make her the regular periodical payments. If he has manoeuvred her out of the matrimonial home at an earlier stage, she has not the home, he is behind with his payments, and the only way for her to get the matrimonial home is to divorce him.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the provisions of Section 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act. So long as the marriage is in existence, at any stage she can register her occupancy of the matrimonial home as a charge, whereupon the court can make an order that she can go back to it and the husband must leave.

Mr. Lyons: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but that is not my point. It may be that she is short of money and needs the value of the house. She cannot get it as a saleable commodity. She may be able to get back into it, but she cannot get the money that it represents. In those circumstances, she is given an incentive by this Measure to divorce her husband as the only means of getting the house, if it is not in her name.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: She can also obtain her remedy by securing a judicial separation. She does not have to seek a divorce.

Mr. Lyons: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. That was not within my understanding.
The Bill relates to people who have substantial assets but not to ordinary working people, except those who have managed to acquire a house over a period of years. This is a Bill for the middle and upper classes, with that exception. That is acknowledged by the fact that the Bill does not extend to the magistrates' court. One has to go to the High Court for the power to transfer property to be exercised in one's favour.
One curious feature is that, although the Bill gives the court power to grant to one spouse money representing the increase in value of the house produced by improvements to it, it does nothing where one spouse put a lot of money into the house at the time of its purchase and has not got his or her name on the title deeds. In a case where the wife contributed all the purchase price, but where the house is in the name of her husband,

by the House of Lords decision in Pettit v. Pettit, the wife has virtually no chance of getting any of the money invested in the house.
Since many wives do not work and most improvements will normally be done by the husband or with the aid of money supplied by him, he has the advantage of being able to obtain the value of that increased work on the sale of the house. I am delighted to see that the dream of Lord Denning is reinstated in the Bill. It provides the noble Lord with some comfort in his long battle with his fellow Law Lords, who have preferred to put certainty before justice, as was the case in Pettit v. Pettit.
None the less, one has to face the fact that the Bill does nothing to help the party who contributes substantially to the purchase of the matrimonial home, but whose name does not appear on the title deeds. That is still a very big lacuna in our law, and it should be attended to as a matter of urgency.
If the court is to be given discretion to assign property in any way after a divorce, why should not it have that right before divorce? If the discretion which we are giving to the court is so wide, and if we place such trust in our judges, why cannot we give them the same right before divorce?
The hon. Member for Runcorn pointed out that the assets of a family normally consist of a house, the furniture and a car. In my experience, if the wife is out of the house and it is in her husband's name, she cannot have the value of the house, she cannot easily get the value of the furniture, assuming that the parties have not agreed on the value, since usually it proves to be worthless when it is sold by auction, and the car belongs either to a hire-purchase company or to her husband's employer.
The law very much favours husbands, still. Anyone who appears frequently in matrimonial proceedings rapidly comes to the conclusion that those husbands who are cruel and those who commit adultery seem to be prone to income tax evasion. One hears of a standard of living which is not borne out by the income disclosed to the court, and the wife spends most of her time whispering in the ear of her solicitor about all the other money which the husband has never disclosed. Since it is not often


provable, the registrar or the Master takes no real account of those moneys.
Furthermore, registrars are usually loath to take account of the value to the husband of business expenses. Those who deal with this kind of case know that business expenses cover marvellous things. I have seen on business expenses stables for the horses, artificial ponds and payments for flying lessons. Almost anything is done on business expenses.
A divorced wife cannot have that advantage. She is not living with her husband any more, so she cannot do anything about the advantages that he will continue to enjoy. Indeed, although her holidays are not paid for, the husband's often are because he happens to make a business trip to a place with a pleasant climate. That is another disadvantage which a divorced wife suffers.
There is yet another when we come to the wife's claim to have enough money to retain the car which the husband always allotted to her. Often the car never belonged to the husband, but to his company. That being the case, the husband, now that they are divorced or separated and not being able to trust her in future to keep quiet about the situation, is not prepared to allow her to continue to use the company car.
It is often found, too, much to the surprise of the wife, that she was on the company payroll. However, the husband, because he cannot trust her any more, or because she is not his wife, will take her off the payroll. Having her on the payroll was an addition to his income, although admittedly taxed, and enabled him to enjoy a better standard of living in which the wife shared. But when the separation or divorce comes, that ceases. If the husband remarries he can reach the same arrangement with his new wife. But the first wife loses out, because, when the court considers the husband's income, it does not usually assess the money over which he had control when he was married to his first wife through the income for which she was entered in the company's books.
It is, therefore, almost impossible to see how parity can be achieved between husband and wife. There are some things that this House cannot do to produce that parity, but there are other things that it can do. It can push harder

on the question of enforcement. I hope that it will do that. The Bill goes only part of the way towards assisting the wife. It does not by any means go far enough towards ensuring parity of treatment between husband and wife.
I find Clause 35(2) quite intriguing. Like other hon. Members, I have not yet made up my mind about it. I take the view that the courts will not look at the report of the Law Commission except on ambiguity. Where something is not clear, I wonder what right hon. and hon. Members would think was better: the judge looking at his own views and prejudices perhaps, or looking at the enlightened remarks of the Law Commission?
I submit that this House is usually more liberal in its attitudes than the judiciary when it comes to interpreting statutes. When the judiciary interprets Acts passed by this House it almost always places upon them the most restrictive and constricting interpretations. That being so, one wakes up in horror a few years later to discover what the judges have done with legislation which is liberal in intention.
It is often clear that somehow the judges have gone wrong in interpreting what this House intended. It may be the fault of the draftsmen. It may be that new situations have arisen. There may be many reasons. But if the report of the Law Commission may be consulted, it will be an additional little weight in the scales which is worth having to prevent the judges doing what they wish in relation to any ambiguity. Counsel will no doubt ask a judge to look at what the Law Commission said at the time, which will take the judge back to the atmosphere of those days.

Sir D. Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Bill, as drafted, will not oblige a judge to look at the report of the Law Commission? So a narrow-minded judge may hear argument for a long time from counsel on each side trying to persuade him what the Law Commission meant and, after examining a number of pages in its report, he may still say that he will not have regard to it.

Mr. Lyons: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing my attention to the wording of the


Clause, which says "regard may be had". If regard is not obligatory, I do not know what all the fuss is about. If a judge is not going to look at the Law Commission's report, we need not be too perturbed about the existence of the Clause.
If the court refuses to look at the Law Commission's report, so be it. But it strikes me as a somewhat intolerant attitude for the judiciary to take. If the court looks at the report then, at any rate, it will be given the flavour of the atmosphere in which the Bill went through the House. I have not made up my mind about the Clause, but that could be preferable to relying on judges who, I submit, do some terrible things in regard to the wishes of this House.
I have often heard right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite inveigh against ambiguities in Bills which come before the House. They often say that they cannot understand Clauses. If they are not understandable or comprehensible, and we still enact them, then we are handing the making of the law by interpretation to the judiciary. I am not certain that the Law Commission cannot do better, but there it is.
In another place my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor went out of his way to praise the Law Commission for the excellent job that it had done on its report in relation to the Bill. I humbly concur with that praise. However, it is a great pity that the Lord Chancellor contents himself only with praise. It is about time that the Law Commissioners had good salaries and proper terms of service. Their tenure in office is uncertain and their remuneration is poor. As the Law Commission is so important nowadays—it has helped us with the drafting of nearly every Bill—it is a tragedy that its members are not put on the level of high court judges.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's obiter dicta are a little wide of the Bill.

6.50 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I welcome the Bill, which has already been discussed in some detail. I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) when he suggested that many people had

houses, furniture and cars of which they had to dispose on divorce, whether they belonged to them or not. My feeling is that the Bill will be helpful to those who have much less property.
Everyone will welcome the abolition of what is colloquially known among our friends at the Bar as the restitution of "convivial rights". The restitution of conjugual rights was often almost a method of legitimate blackmail, and it ought to be removed from the consideration of judges.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the absence of money to pay maintenance. I am a little disturbed about this factor and it will have to be considered, although the Bill may not be the appropriate place for that. Another Bill now before the House may provide an opportunity to discuss liability for payment of maintenance and other debts. There may be an ordinary creditor-debtor relationship, and we shall have to decide whether these matters are to be dealt with by enforcement procedure. It may be that magistrates will still have power to impose fines for certain offences and those fines can be followed by imprisonment, if not paid.
I understand that there are these various forms of indebtedness, but it is somewhat difficult to discover whether maintenance will be earlier in the queue for enforcement. Discussion of the other Bill will possibly clarify the enforcement situation, but I doubt whether there will ever be an entirely satisfactory situation in that respect.
I want shortly to refer to Clause 35(2). One hon. Member said that it would be useful to have an explanatory note. The last paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum makes this the understatement of the year, namely:
Part III contains the usual supplementary provisions.
I have never known such an inadequate statement in an Explanatory Memorandum, because these are not the usual provisions.
There has been much discussion about Clause 35(2), because it raises a constitutional issue between the legislature and the judiciary. It is not possible and it is undesirable to have the two in any way mixed when that results in our not knowing exactly where we stand. I do not


like references to other documents. We already have enough documents to read and I am finding it extremely difficult to keep up with them. If to them are to be added a whole series of Law Commission reports, and these reports are made parts of Bills, regulations and rules will be as nothing, and it is hard enough to keep up with them.
When I was attending the Council of Europe, we discussed whether it was in order to discuss the findings of previous committees. What was surprising was that, with the exception of the Scandinavian countries, we were the only country whose judicial system was related solely to precedent, statutory or case precedent. My colleagues from this House and I thought it important that we should not have too many words which might or might not have value, and we thought that we should rely only on the final reports submitted to the Council of Europe. I am pleased to say that after some argument we were able to persuade others that that was the way in which to deal with the matter.
Similarly, this is the wrong way to introduce a constitutional change of this kind, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will inform the Government that the unanimous feeling of the House is against this provision.
I am not certain whether it can be done under the Bill, but I hope that magistrates' courts will be made available for those who do not want to continue in the High Court. I have known a number of cases when a High Court divorce has gone through and it has then been decided to seek variations in settlement, for instance, which could easily and cheaply be done in a magistrates' court. So far as I know, however, there is no power to allow that. I do not know whether the Long Title will permit an Amendment for such a change.
In general, the Bill is a great improvement and I hope that it will go through minus Clause 35(2).

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Like hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken before me, I generally welcome this Bill, which seeks to bring about some very necessary improvements in our matrimonial law. My complaint is that it does not go nearly far enough

and that it falls far short of what we were led to expect at the time when the Divorce Reform Bill was passing through this House. A great many people will be very disappointed by the Bill, because it falls so far short of what they were led to expect.
We must remember that at the time when the Divorce Reform Bill was passing through the House many were concerned especially about the plight of a woman if she were divorced against her consent and as a result lost not only the status of marriage but also rights to such things as a widow's pension.
We were assured by the sponsors of that Bill that there was no need to worry about that, because legislation dealing with matrimonial property would be introduced and would come into force at the same time as that Bill. This is that legislation; this is considered to be the implementation of that promise. In my submission the promise has not been implemented. I think many who supported the Divorce Reform Bill were misled. They supported it believing that legislation of a much more far-reaching kind would be introduced than this Bill.
Judges of the divorce court now have very wide powers. They can do almost anything that this Bill will enable them to do. The Bill gives the judges almost negligible powers in excess of what they already have. The one thing the Bill does is to enable the courts to award property as between one spouse and another. Now, for the first time, it will be possible for a judge after a divorce to say of the matrimonial home, if it happens to belong to the husband, "You must transfer it to your wife, or she must have a half share in it".
That is something which the courts hitherto have not had the power to do, but the courts have had the power to award a lump sum. So, although the judge could not give half the house to the wife, he could order the husband to pay her £2,000 which probably would be half the value of the house. Even that additional power is not a very important one, because indirectly the courts already had it. For practical purposes the Bill gives the courts no power which they did not already have to help these women. Most of the husbands who are brought to the divorce court do not own a house anyway and they have no other property to speak


of. Even if they happen to own a house probably it is heavily mortgaged, so the equity in it is of very small value. For the bulk of the population the Bill does nothing.
There is one respect in which legislation could have helped the women who are divorced against their will. They are the people with whom we shall be concerned. This is why so many of us were opposed to the Divorce Reform Bill. We did not mind its main provisions; it was only this one provision which enabled a husband to leave his perfectly innocent wife after 20 or 25 years of marriage and five years later to divorce her against her will, depriving her not only of the status of marriage but of the financial advantages that it brings, to which we were opposed.
The greatest financial advantage at that time to the wife of the ordinary man in the street is the right to a widow's pension. For the man who has no assets and has only his weekly income, the situation is simple. The wife will be awarded a part of that income by way of maintenance, but while she was his wife she was also in the position that if he died she would become his widow. Having been divorced not because of any fault on her part but because her husband preferred another woman, she loses also the possibility of becoming a widow and having a widow's pension.
If the Bill were to achieve anything and to implement the promise that was made, it would have to deal with pensions. It would have to contain a provision that the court should have the power to apportion widows' pensions so that when there had been a divorce and years later the husband died having remarried, the court could say that the widow's pension should be apportioned, two-thirds may be to the woman who was his wife for a quarter of a century and one-third to the woman who was his wife for only his last few years. That would be the real asset which could benefit the woman concerned, but this Bill does nothing about that.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that 50 per cent. of all divorces relate to women under the age of 35 and that many women predecease their husbands, that pension payments made by the husband during the

existence of the marriage are credited to the wife, and very often, despite all these considerations relating to pensions, wives themselves take divorce proceedings? In fact most divorce proceedings are taken by wives. I agree that there is a problem, but is it not fair to make these points also?

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making those points, but none of them is really relevant to the point I am making. I am not very much concerned with those young people who obtain divorces. I am concerned with old people, particularly elderly ladies who will be divorced against their will as from 1st January next year. Most of them are not young. It is with these people that we are primarily concerned. It is only in respect of these women divorced against their will that this particular legislation was promised.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the hon. and learned Member not agree that under the Divorce Act the court has power to refuse a decree to any man applying under the five-year rule if the court is not satisfied about the arrangements made for his spouse? Therefore, the court is entitled to take into account the question of the pension.

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of that provision, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that it ends by referring to the best arrangements that can be devised in the circumstances. So if an ordinary working man wants to have a divorce and remarry, his earnings have to be divided between the two families. When he dies the widow's pension by law will be paid to his widow, who will be his new wife, and maybe she has been his wife for only a year or two. Those are the best arrangements that can be devised in the circumstances and the man will be given his divorce.
It is absolutely vital that the Government should do something about pensions. Of course I am not speaking only about the State pension, but also of other widows' pensions arranged by employers. I do not care if it is restricted to women who are divorced against their will but they, at least, must be put in a position where they will not suffer the loss of a pension to which they are entitled by virtue of their marriage.
I also suggest that provision ought to be made in the Bill to ensure that the claims of the women I have in mind take priority. At present, if a husband, having been divorced by one wife, marries another and the first wife claims maintenance from him, the husband comes along to the court and explains how much his earnings are but explains too that he now has a new wife to support and provision is ordinarily made for that. I suggest that in dealing with these matters the court should be enjoined to treat that man as if he had not married again. I know that I am not the first to make that suggestion but the first wife must have the first claim. After all, the second wife knew what she was taking on. She knew her husband had been married before and had an obligation to provide for his first wife. If there is plenty of money no problem arises, because there is enough money to support both households. But when there is not enough money—and in most cases there is not—if someone has to apply for social security, I urge that it ought to be not the first wife but the second.

Sir Myer Galpern: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give us some information and guidance about what would happen to life policies with sums payable at the death of the husband? Nowadays most people are insured to a large or small extent. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what he thinks would happen to the payment at death in the case which he has been illustrating, when the husband has taken a unilateral divorce? Would it go to the first wife or entirely to the new legal wife?

Mr. Campbell: Unless an order of the court was made it would go into his estate and then pass according to his will. If he had left his entire estate to his second wife—which he probably would do—she would receive it.
It is right to point out that the court has a power to order what is called secured maintenance and if the court knew about the policy it could order that the husband continue the premiums and that on his death the sum due, or part of it, be paid to the first wife.
The difficulty is that one is looking ahead to the death of the husband which

may be a long way off. But I should like to see the courts given much greater powers to deal with what is to happen on the death of the husband. It is also fair to mention that the courts have power on the death of a husband to order that part of his estate should go to the first wife. If she has not been provided for in the will she can apply to the court to have provision made for her.
I join with other hon. Members in submitting that Clause 35(2) is objectionable. It is one thing a year or two after legislation has left this House for a judge to say what we meant when we passed it. But it is a very different matter for the Law Commission to be saying two years before we pass the legislation what we shall mean when we pass it.
Having made those points I welcome the Bill. So far as the smaller points are concerned I agree that the sexes should be put on a basis of equality and that the wife should, in proper cases, be ordered to maintain her husband. I draw attention to Clause 6, which deals with wilful neglect to maintain. That Clause says that if the husband wants to be maintained by his wife he must show that he is suffering from some infirmity. The words of Clause 6(1)(b)(i) are:
… by reason for the impairment of the applicant's earning capacity through age, illness or disability of mind or body, and having regard …
to other matters as well, it is right that the husband should be maintained.
I do not know why that provision should not be put in. I do not call that equality of the sexes. Wives do not have to show that they have become infirm before they are entitled to maintenance and I do not see why the husbands should either. If a husband has a rich wife who has decided to leave him and he has no money I can see no reason why he should have to prove that he is ill or infirm before he is entitled to maintenance.
I agree that the remedy of the restitution of conjugal rights should be abolished, although I do not agree that it never had any purpose. It did until 1958, when the remedy of maintenance for wilful neglect to maintenance was introduced. Before that, a wife who had simply been deserted by her husband had no way of obtaining maintenance except in a magistrates' court. She could not go


to the High Court because, until she had been deserted for three years, she could not ask for a divorce or judicial separation on that ground, and otherwise, unless her case was based on cruelty or adultery, she could not go, either.
At that time the only course the wife could take was to present a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights. She did not expect her husband to come back. All she wanted was the questions of maintenance, custody and ancillary matters covered by such a decree and that was the only way in which she could do it. Since 1958 a wife has been able to follow a different procedure by alleging wilful neglect to maintain and I agree that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is no longer necessary.
But the Bill fails to do what we were promised. It fails to safeguard the rights of those innocent spouses—particularly women—who from next January may be divorced against their will. So far as the Bill goes it is splendid but it does not go far enough and it does not go as far as was promised.

7.19 p.m.

Sir John Foster: I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) that the Bill does not go far enough, and I follow also the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), when he said that the registrars and judges do not really take enough account of the facts of life. I take up also what he said about cars and business expenses, and I add the question of the juggling between capital and income in the case of the better-off people. The hon. Member has probably come across many instances when a husband can avoid his obligation by saying that he has no income. It is very difficult for the registrar, with the tools at present at his disposal, to investigate what the actual standard of living of the husband is.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West made an important point about pensions. Taking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), I suggest further that provision should be made in the Bill regarding life policies payable on the death of the husband. What my hon. and learned Friend said envisages that the order may come a long

time after the divorce. The husband may marry not once more, but may marry several wives one after another. One would have to sort it out according to what was there. If the judges are not only given the power but are enjoined, as my hon. and learned Friend said, to look after the first wife, that should deal with the position.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will probably agree that we all want to do the best we can for wives who are deserted and then divorced against their will. I add the consideration of other wives whose standard of life falls disastrously after they are abandoned by their husbands. The arguments which have been advanced will help in Committee, at which stage, I imagine, we shall all wish to deal with these questions.
I come now to Clause 35(2). Here, I probably find myself in a minority of one. I am in favour of the principle of subsection (2), but not of the form in which it now is. In other jurisdictions, it has been found helpful to look at what are called the travaux preparatoires. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West made a good point when he said that, if one is to look at what the Law Commission says two years back, it will be rather difficult to interpret what Parliament means. That is one reason why I do not like the subsection quite in this form.
In my view, however, the principle is good and it should be applied to all legislation. There is no reason to single out matrimonial law for the application of a good principle. One ought to apply it generally. Again and again in income tax law, Treasury Ministers have given assurances that the law means such and such, and then the Treasury has at a later stage calmly broken the assurances. This is an intolerable situation. The remedy is not that the Treasury should be sternly talked to by a Minister and told that it has broken an assurance given. It should be open to the court to look at the assurance which the Treasury Minister gave. One of the most famous instances, very much in the minds of all tax lawyers, no doubt, is Section 412 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. The Minister said that it would never be used for a certain purpose and that it did not mean that. It now means exactly the opposite of what he said. The wording


is so large that the Treasury has been found entitled to apply it in that large way.
Moreover, supporters of the Bill as it stands may defend their position on the general principle of looking at preparatory work by praying in aid comparative law. Many English lawyers are a bit too insular. Things work well in other countries on principles introduced according to the law of those countries. I suggest that this is one such. At times, as has been said, judges interpret words restrictively, but no one doubts that that was not intended.
I remember appearing in a case at the Old Bailey in which the accused was charged with humping a bag of heroin off an aeroplane in Singapore. The authorities charged him in England, because the law said that anyone who committed a crime on a British aircraft outside the United Kingdom can be charged in England. I got him off. I pointed out to the judge that the words covered anyone who committed a crime on an aeroplane outside the United Kingdom, and humping a bag of heroin off an aeroplane was not a crime according to the law of England. Therefore, I argued, the accused had not committed a crime in Singapore, and accordingly he could not be tried at home.
That is a hair-splitting argument. It is anti-social. The draftsman should have phrased it to the effect that anyone who committed an act on an aeroplane outside the United Kingdom, which, if committed at home, would be a crime, can be tried at home. He had not done that, and it got my man off. But it is nonsense. Everyone knew what the draftsman had meant to say, but he did not say it. He had not thought in that subtle way—and why should he? But the judge interpreted it in that way. Perhaps I should say that I have now retired from the Bar, and it is no good anyone coming to me to take up these points or give advice.
I suggest that those hon. Members who have spoken against Clause 35(2) should consider how it works in other countries. Sometimes there is an explanatory note in the Statute itself. Sometimes there are cross-references which begin to look a bit like algebraic equations. But if it is clear that a Minister said, and both sides

of the House agreed, that a Bill is meant to implement such-and-such a Commission's report—as has happened in regard to libel—one should be able to interpret the law in accordance with the report of the Commission. But it is no good looking to the Report of the Law Commission unless it is specifically said, for example, that Clause 6 is intended to implement recommendation 8 of the Law Commission.
For those reasons, though in a minority, I am in favour of the principle of Clause 35(2), although I should like to see it amended in Committee.

7.26 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I revert, first, to the exchange which occurred right at the outset with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). It is a matter of importance, and I wish to make the position absolutely clear. I spoke of the importance which I have always attached to the existence of good relations between Parliament and the Law Commission. I have repeatedly spoken of the importance of that, and I do not believe that anything which I have said on this theme could conceivably convey any implication that Parliament should merely rubber-stamp proposals of the Commission or feel in any way inhibited from making its own conclusions by anything which the Commission had recommended. I wish to make that as clear as I can.
Next, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the Government were dealing with the matter of enforcement of maintenance orders. I am compelled by the circumstances to answer that closely relevant question in general terms, and I hope that he will accept an answer of that kind. We are giving the matter consideration. In various parts of the Government, it is being looked at. There is an enormous lot of work involved when, at the same time, the question of the enforcement of civil debt is receiving attention. I can only say in general terms that we are giving the matter of enforcement careful attention.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that I should not attempt to answer the arguments about Clause 35 in this debate. It was very civil of him. He felt, I think, that the arguments on that question would be so overwhelming that it would be only appropriate for me


to convey to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor the feeling of the House and say that there was no difference of opinion.
I have two comments to make about that. First, the matter has already been given very careful thought by all of us, and it is not to be regarded as having been concluded without a great deal of deliberation. Second, as the debate proceeded, the attitude of the House towards Clause 35 has not taken, I suggest, the one-sided form which the right hon. and learned Gentleman expected. I was rather struck by that.
I greatly appreciated the approach of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who thought that he would vote against the Clause in its present form, but that in principle the matter should be carefully considered. He saw its advantages. Since he has just returned, perhaps I might repeat how welcome his contribution was and that, although he was at the moment inclined to oppose Clause 35, he could see that it was an important issue, for which there were arguments on either side—

Sir D. Renton: Typically Liberal.

Mr. Hooson: The Solicitor-General is right; it is not a hidebound rule. There are obvious merits in this experimental Clause which have obviously escaped the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire, who looks at it with blinkered eyes.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman's approach is welcome. We think that the Clause deserves serious and sympathetic consideration.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) is mistaken in regarding himself as the only hon. Member with that particular view. Others have shown it. The House attaches the greatest importance to his views on a matter like this. He does not like the proposed form, but in principle welcomes this treatment of the Commission's report. It is a mistake to regard this as a point on which there has been unanimity. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) must be added to this list of defaulters from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's prognostication, since he was sympathetic to the proposal but, understandably, complained that the thing should await the interpretation of

statutes. One can see the force of that, but it is not a total rejection of this proposal.

Sir D. Renton: To be fair, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not remember that, apart from himself, I believe that only one hon. Member was completely in favour of Clause 35(2)?

The Solicitor-General: I take note of that and there was great force in what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) had to say, that the Explanatory Memorandum is possibly open to unfavourable comment, because it says that Part III contains the usual supplementary provision. That is rather a good point: I share his view of that.
So there has been nothing like the universal hostility to this proposal which the right hon. and learned Gentleman adumbrated. There are conflicting views, however, and they should be carefully considered in Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned me, may I make it clear that I said that there was force in the principle of some form of Explanatory Memorandum, but I must admit that I would find wholly unacceptable the suggestion of the Law Commission report, as written into the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has cleared that up. I hope that I did not misinterpret him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) mentioned the provision in Clause 10 under which arrears in payment of maintenance can be raised only after a year. The only point not requiring leave, as the Bill would enforce arrears, is that a woman who has done nothing for a year should at least explain to a court why she is now trying to enforce. In a magistrates' court, the order must be obtained on a complaint before enforcement process can issue, but, in the High Court or a county court, a warrant issues without an order.
My hon. Friend mentioned, on Clause 32, the question whether the onus on the payer under an order to find out whether there has been a marriage operated fairly. That is a question which can be usefully considered, and we take note of it. The same applies to what he said about Clause 28. We should consider whether there


should be the distinction which the Bill appears to draw between improvement and maintenance of property or a house.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who has explained to me that he cannot be here now, suggested that a passage in line 13 of Clause 5 puts an unconscionable burden on judges and registrars. Although it is difficult for those concerned to judge these matters to have regard to conduct in determining appropriate treatment of an order affecting the family finances, we do not expect that, in practice, this will be an excessive burden. We think that the effect of the Clause is a practicable one, and although points may be raised on it in Committee our present inclination is to think that it meets the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson), whose great part in work on such legislation I acknowledge, said that he did not like Clause 35(2), but he gave a friendly response to Clause 31 on judicial separations, which I was glad to hear.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, in addition to his welcome treatment of the issue raised by Clause 35, mentioned two points in particular. The first was the question whether it was right that maintenance should always come to an end with remarriage. The second related to his anxieties about the wife's pension rights in occupational schemes and occupational scheme gratuities. These two matters must and will receive consideration. There has been a slight tendency in the debate to underestimate the extent to which, under the Bill, the court is invited to have regard to the pension position as a matter affecting the kind of order it is appropriate to give under the separate heads which I explained earlier. I acknowledge that the broader issue raised by the effect of the Divorce Reform Act and this Bill upon pensions is a matter that still needs determination, and it is receiving inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) emphasised to the House, it seemed to me, the desirability of expediting the full report upon communal property in the ex-marriage. There has never been any concealment by the Government of the fact that the treatment of the whole comprehensive issue of spouses' property on marriage is some-

thing which cannot be dealt with except after some substantial period has elapsed. I mentioned earlier that the Law Commission was hoping in the present year to complete the informal consultations necessary before this working paper can be issued. I added that of course the first working paper was only the preliminary step in the process. I must remind my hon. Friend of the circumstances, because the last thing that I wish to do is to raise hopes of a more expeditious treatment of this matter than is really practicable. I hope that he will take note of that.

Sir J. Foster: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us whether a certain sort of case I have in mind is covered by the Bill. I do not think that it is. It is a case where the husband gives his mistress a lot of money while still married to his wife. Has the court, in a settlement, any power to bring a little pressure on the new ménage—assuming that he has married his mistress, who has had all the money, with the result that he tells the court, "I have not got any"? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take that into account.

The Solicitor-General: That is a matter one would wish to take into account, but one can see considerable difficulties.
The hon. Member for Runcorn raised the question of Clause 29 and whether we could consider improving the protections offered by the Matrimonial Homes Act by altering the existing provisions relating to registration. I will look into that and perhaps the point can be considered at a later stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) was concerned with the question of the onus of finding out about remarriage, a point raised by other hon. Members. This, too, can be considered in Committee. In addition, he wanted the powers under the relevant Act, which the Bill says can be extended for three years after the divorce, to be extended to a five-year period. That is also a point for consideration in Committee.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire drew attention to the passage in the Explanatory Memorandum to which I have already referred. The hon. and learned Member for Oldham,


West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) made a point to which I had careful regard. I am bound to repudiate emphatically his suggestion that there has been any misleading over what the Bill will do. No doubt there can be different views upon this matter but I reject what he said. It was always made clear that the treatment of matrimonial property, apart from the goods of the marriage that has broken down, was something which would have to come later than the treatment of the financial provisions which are the subject of the Bill. I do not think that there was ever any justifiable misunderstanding on that point. Nor was there, I am satisfied, at any stage any promise that the Bill would give the court any power to apportion the widow's pension in the fashion which he indicated he thought was desirable.
Broadly, the Bill has received a welcome from the House and I express the Government's satisfaction and gratification that that should have been the case.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, I want to mention the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who asked what would happen if a man gave to his mistress his assets while still married to his wife. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it is in the Bill. It is in Clause 16. There is power now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) has exhausted his right to speak. He may ask a question of the Solicitor-General. Apparently, the Solicitor-General seeks not to reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PURCHASE TAX

7.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1736), dated 4th December 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
The effect of this order is to introduce five minor adjustments of the purchase tax coverage which are needed to correct particular anomalies which have been the subject of increasingly strong representations in recent months. Three of them are settled by way of new reliefs but two involve increasing the scope of the tax to a minor extent and that, as the House will appreciate, is why this Motion is necessary. These are not matters which should, in our judgment, wait for the next Finance Bill, and the Treasury order procedure is provided under the Purchase Tax Act, 1963, so that miscellaneous minor items of this character can be dealt with as and when action is needed.
The order came into force on 1st January, 1970. The gap between the operative date and the publicity given to the order on 8th December gave the traders concerned three-and-a-half weeks' notice in which to make their preparations. A period any longer than this would have given rise to concern on the part of those traders granted relief, and increased the risk of forestalling by those traders who are encountering a charge for the first time.
Taking the alterations in the order in which they are set out in the Statutory Instrument, the first three items are in the textile field. The House will recall that, in his Budget last year, the Chancellor brought back into the purchase tax certain domestic textiles whose exclusion from tax could no longer be justified. Experience since then has shown that there are a few minor instances where the tax can with advantage be adjusted. As regards the first item, disposable incontinence pads, these became chargeable at 13¾ per cent. of the wholesale value, together with the generality of articles used for domestic bedding and similar purposes. The existing exemption for invalid aids was retained, and this includes air pillows and


air cushions and also water beds, water pillows and water cushions.
There has been considerable pressure for the purchase tax to be taken off incontinence pads as they are at least as important as nursing aids as some of the items already exempt. I understand that the Surgical Dressing Manufacturers' Association has welcomed the decision.
The next item concerns certain bonded fibre fabrics, and here our proposal is simply to restrict the existing exemption for these products to its intended industrial scope and to prevent its growing use as a means of avoidance of the tax on goods sold on the retail market. I will give an example of the way this happens at present.
Group 6 of the Purchase Tax Schedule covers, among other things, clearing materials such as dusters and dish cloths if they are finished articles. The materials of which they are made are also taxed, at the same rate of 13¾ per cent., under Group 7. However, there is an exemption, to which I have referred, for bonded fibre fabrics. This was intended to exempt fabrics which industry used as general purpose cleaning cloths, etc. But recently this material has been put on the retail market in packs of 6 or 12 small square pieces recommended for use as dish cloths, dusters and car polishers, and so forth. There are other possibilities of substitution of this material for conventional textiles. The Household Textiles Association and a number of textile firms concerned with dish and cleaning cloths have pressed for the anomaly to be rectified.
The present amendment has, therefore, been drafted to restore the charge on material used for household purposes whilst maintaining the exemption in favour of industry, as was originally intended. The technical definition of the type of bonded fibre fabric is not altered, but the words
not put up for retail sale
are inserted. I am sure that the House will agree that we ought to take action to stop tax avoidance of this kind, however innocently it may have begun to develop, because otherwise the market becomes distorted. I have no reason to suppose that the alteration we propose will cause domestic articles in this new material to lose their attraction for the

public. But we must, in fairness to manufacturers in more traditional materials, make sure that they compete on a fair basis.
We are also, at the same time, proposing the addition of another industrial exemption to Group 7, in favour of certain polyolefin fabrics.
When the tax on tissues and fabrics in Group 7 was widened in the 1969 Budget the existing exemptions for certain fabrics of natural materials used industrially were left unaltered. The polyolefin fabrics had been developed while textiles generally were outside the scope of the tax, from 1955 to 1969, and when the tax was reintroduced they became chargeable at 13¾ per cent. Certain fabrics woven from narrow strips of polyolefin either by itself or in union with jute or flax, had in the meantime become widely used industrially as wrapping material.
The Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers, Dundee, supported by the Flaxspinners' and Manufacturers Association of Great Britain, also of Dundee, made strong representations for the exemption of jute to be extended to polyolefin or mixtures of this with jute or flax. This is the purpose of the present amendment, which has been welcomed by the Jute Spinners Association and other interested parties.
I come now to the other item which involves an extension of the scope of the tax. This concerns certain elements for electrically operated ceiling, wall or floor heating systems. At present, apparatus of a kind used for domestic heating is taxed at 36⅔ per cent. under Group 12. However, this applies in practice only to apparatus that is supplied in a form immediately ready for installation. There is a kind of ceiling, wall or floor heating system which essentially consists of a combination of conductive and resistive materials sandwiched between two layers of insulating material. This element is supplied either cut to length and sealed at the ends with electrical connections fixed, or in the form of a roll of the element which then needs to be cut and sealed on the site with the electrical connections being added.
Previously the first variety was taxable because it is an appliance or apparatus and the second variety is not taxable


because it is not complete. The cutting and sealing operation involves little work or expense and can easily be done on site: consequently, the non-taxable element enjoys a distinct advantage.
The non-taxable variety is made in the United Kingdom and the taxable variety is made by a Norwegian firm. This has led to a formal complaint to the E.F.T.A. Committee of Trade Experts by the Norwegian Government quoting Article 6 of the Convention which says that
Member states shall not
(a) apply directly or indirectly to imported goods any fiscal charges in excess of those applied to like domestic goods, nor otherwise apply such charges so as to afford effective protection to like domestic goods …
The majority of members of that Committee took the view, which was strongly contested by the United Kingdom that there was discrimination contrary to Article 6. To avoid an adverse ruling by the E.F.T.A. Council on this issue E.F.T.A. and the Norwegian Government were assured that action would be taken as soon as possible to remedy the situation.
The amendment proposed to the Purchase Tax Schedule removes this particular anomaly, and is not intended to affect anything else. I must say, however, that this item has caused me more concern than any other in the Order, because the British product affected is made in a factory in a development area in Scotland where increased scope for employment is urgently needed. We cannot, of course, give more favourable purchase tax treatment to products manufactured or processed in development areas.
This is an idea which the House has frequently considered in various contexts and had to reject: it could not be confined to one product and its general acceptance would undermine the purchase tax as a revenue instrument.
I am sure that the House will understand that I nevertheless felt very unhappy about a proposal which would in any way deter or hold back the expansion of the factory making this particular product. In fact, we have deferred moving this Resolution so as to give time for consultation with the manufacturer concerned to see whether he could suggest any satisfactory way in which we could meet our E.F.T.A.

obligations without taxing the Scottish product. Both that manufacturer and the Norwegian firm making the directly comparable product would naturally have wished us to remove the distinction between them by making them both tax-free, and I have personally explored this thoroughly with representatives of the Scottish manufacturer and with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and with my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire is the Member whose constituency is affected.
I am afraid that it has all been to no avail, because the further we went into the technicalities the more evident it became that preferential tax treatment for these two products, even if extended to one or two others closely analogous, would be grossly inequitable to a number of other British manufacturers of electric heating systems and appliances and would be logically indefensible. We cannot at the present time contemplate removing all these systems, appliances and elements from the tax since they represent a sizeable source of revenue which we cannot afford to lose.
We have, therefore, been forced to the conclusion that the only solution to the problem is to put the elements covered by the present order into the taxable area along with their peers. I put forward this part of the order with considerable regret.
The final item is a provision excluding from the charge on tape recorder/reproducers certain audio-instruments suitable only for instructional use, which I am sure will be welcomed by Members.
In the 1968 Budget the purchase tax was extended by the addition of a new Group 19A to cover instruments for reproducing pre-recorded sound, such as tape recorders and reproducers. Since then there has been a growth in the number of specialised instructional instruments available and there has been pressure for some action to remove these from the charge under Group 19A.
After discussions with interested Government Departments and the trade a formula which would exclude from the tax the bulk of the instruments specialised


for instructional use has been devised and constitutes the proposed amendment. This corresponds in a sense to the exemption which we introduced during the 1968 Finance Bill for certain types of projector: it is the audio counterpart of that provision for visual aids to instruction. Since 8th December the Customs and Excise has been in touch with the various manufacturers concerned to establish with them which models come within the formula.
I shall be happy to deal with any other points relating to this or any other item. I have tried to deal briefly with the points arising and explain why we need to make the order. I would only add that the proposed changes are not expected to have any significant effect on the Revenue, and for these reasons I ask the House to approve the order.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I want to deal with two items, the first to do with Item 4, about which the Financial Secretary spoke for a good part of his speech, and the second dealing with Item 5.
Item 4 deals with the electrically operated heating elements. There is, as the Financial Secretary suggested, a rather special story behind this change. The story of the inclusion of these instruments in the charge to purchase tax in my view, in spite of the attempt he made to put the best possible Government face on things, amounts at best to maladministration and at the worst to something approaching a scandal. Depending on whether the Financial Secretary can go further and give us more hope on this topic when he replies, it will be my advice to the management of Imperial Chemical Industries and to its shareholders seriously to consider submitting this question to the Ombudsman.
It may be that the Opposition will want to come back and have another go at this item, at least in the Finance Bill, if the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot hold out hope of doing something constructive about it earlier.
It is important that the House should look at the history of this project. In some ways it is a fascinating story. It concerns the novel, semi-textile material

going under the trade name of Flexel; it is a sort of rubberised fabric with a very high carbon content which is capable of conducting electricity. Its main use is in space heating. It can be built as an integral part of the ceiling or wall of a building at the time of construction and it operates by radiating heat. It is produced by I.C.I. at the Nobel Division Factory at Ardeer, in Ayrshire, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It results from a good 10 years of research.
Its significance is two-fold for the point of view of the economy generally. It is designed to be built as an integral part of a house; it is really part of the building materials used for the ceilings or walls. Its attraction is that it needs no special accessories, pipes, junction boxes, switches and all the other odds and ends which make obtrusions and take up space. Indeed, it is in its economy in the use of space that it is made particularly attractive for council house building and small private house building. The producers say that
The architect does not have to accommodate us; we accommodate him.
This is a novel departure in house building.
Secondly, it gives off radiation heat and is very efficient as a heat radiator in that it can produce a comfortable heat at anything up to 5° lower than comparable forms of appliances. It is extremely economical in its use of heat; which is important since economies in the use of heat are given weight in our fiscal system, for example, with night storage heaters.
By 1966, I.C.I. had completed the pilot stage of the development of this product and were ready to scale up. There followed discussions with officers of the Customs and Excise precisely about the implications for purchase tax of this product. After these discussions the Customs and Excise concluded that, provided certain installation procedures were followed in the use of materials on the building site the system incorporating Flexel would be free of purchase tax. The House will note that this explicit assurance was confirmed to I.C.I. in a letter from the Customs and Excise dated 19th December, 1966.
This was the green light for I.C.I. at Ardeer. Before this clearance the light, from I.C.I.'s point of view, was red or


at least amber, because the central heating market, in which Flexel was designed to compete, is extremely competitive. Gas central heating installations, oilfired and night storage systems are all free of purchase tax. Flexel was given the green light on the assumption that it would be free of the tax. Without the tax a typical installation of Flexel works out at £180 per house, for the small house in the £4,500 to £5,000 range.
If the House accepts this new charge at the rate of 36⅔ per cent. on Flexel the whole profit basis of the product and the operation designed to market it is completely undermined. The competitive merits of this new development are not only obliterated, but swept entirely out of court by an increase in its selling price of effectively well over one-third.
Production was cracking along in Ardeer on the assumption that it would be free of purchase tax and by the beginning of this year the factory had 200 employees; it was anticipating a turnover of about £1 million in February, 1970. The growth prospect was at the rate of 20 per cent. in turnover per annum over the next few years. It was anticipated, and this is the key figure, that employment at Ardeer would go up to as high as 1,000, from 200, by 1972—this in a development area with an otherwise high level of unemployment.
This order, if it is accepted and the Government can hold out no hope of modifying it in a Finance Bill, is likely to strangle a promising project, with a substantial export potential on a good home market basis, not at birth, which would have been hard enough, but during adolescence, which is really a great deal worse. It will not be competitive any longer.
It is worth mentioning, in passing, that I.C.I. his already accepted orders for 7,000 houses using this system and to be completed in the current year, but on prices fixed before the order takes effect. I.C.I. will, therefore, have to carry the extra current cost, quite apart from the loss of competitiveness and profit which this represents for the future, and the 36⅔ per cent. tax which will be yielded to the Revenue will be a direct extra charge en I.C.I. which it will not be able to recover.
I should like to refer to the charge of maladministration, if not of scandal,

which lies behind the order. It lies in the fact that the Government are making a total change since the original clearance was given to I.C.I. in 1966. This change is a response not to reconsidering the nature of the product, or the nature of the original exemption, or an extra need for revenue, or to a desire to close a tax loophole, but simply to a foreign objection.
As the Financial Secretary has said, through the E.F.T.A. agreement the Norwegian Government objected in respect of their own domestic product, known as Eswa, which is not an identical product. To accommodate the Norwegian Government, potentially a foreign competitor, but on only a tiny scale—British imports of Eswa are insignificant in relation to both the Norwegian and the United Kingdom economy—the Government have made this change.
Incidentally, Eswa is not even a like product. It incorporates different materials and it is fully and finally pre-fabricated before arrival on site. It operates on a totally different principle. To make it all square with Flexel, we now have to rewrite the original clearance which was given by Customs and Excise to bring this important British innovation within the tax net.
This is not good enough and I must ask the Financial Secretary seriously to consider it again. Unemployment in the Scottish economy is at stake; the potential of a promising export product is at stake; and the whole confidence of manufacturers in the word of the Government before scaling up and starting commercial production of new products is at stake.
If they applied their full Departmental skills and intelligence, the Government could probably devise a formula which could accommodate Eswa as well as Flexel in a new category which would continue to have exemption without causing offence to others producing quite dissimilar articles and appliances. The Government asked I.C.I. whether it could devise such a formula. Let the Government now try. Flexel is not strictly an appliance. It could be described as a special kind of building material and it is not unfair to place it in the category of building materials. I believe that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire would


probably be prepared to support me about that.
It is incorporated in the building of a house and it is not dissimilar from other materials used in a house to ensure the most economic use of heating. It is not a heating appliance and should not be regarded in that sense. It is arguably a building material, or it could come under the heading of elements to be included in the exemptions in Group 12(5) in the orders governing purchase tax. Elements of this sort are featured in night storage heaters which come in Group 12(5) exemptions, and night storage heaters are excluded. They incorporate elements in exactly the same way as this material, which is itself described in the order as an element.
Night storage elements are excluded on fuel policy grounds because they are extremely economic in their use of power and they are used at off-peak periods. The same principle applies to Flexel. It, to, maximises radiant heating and the efficient use of electrical power. If night storage heaters and the elements therein can be exempted, Flexel should be exempted on the same principle.
The main significance lies in the fact that this is a structural building material. It goes into the wall of a building and it is in no sense to be confused with appliances which are movable and which can be freely operated in a house where Flexel is not installed. It will be competitive only in new housing with central heating installations, which are already exempt, which is the crucial consideration.
The Financial Secretary cannot justify this innovation in the purchase tax laws on the ground that there will be outcries from the manufacturers of other types of appliances. It is not in the same market or category and it does not compete with them. It competes with the already purchase tax-free installations operated by gas, by electricity, in the case of night storage heaters, or oil.
I ask the Financial Secretary to undertake at least to consider whether, with the help of his Department, he can devise a formula for the Finance Bill to secure exemption for Flexel. I advise I.C.I. to do everything it can to see whether it cannot have the maladministration aspect

considered. It is not right that it should have been assured by Customs and Excise that a certain product would be free of tax and should then be landed with this change. I suspect that a charge of maladministration, taken to the Ombudsman, would stick.
The Financial Secretary briefly referred to Item 5. We warmly welcome the decision to remove from the charge some specialised audio instruments. The Financial Secretary, who sat with me through the long debates on the Finance Act, 1968, will agree that we have some grounds for complaining that this exemption was not made earlier.
It is now nearly three years since the Finance Act, 1968, was passed and these audio instruments have, therefore, been carrying tax unnecessarily for three years. These exemptions could have been included among those perfectly properly made in the 1968 Act, for these fall into the category of those instruments which were then exempted, such as tape recorders for scientific or industrial use. Similar considerations apply to these instruments as apply to those specialised appliances for recording or reproducing speech. Those for educational use are exactly the same sort of specialised instruments as those for scientific, industrial or commercial use.
In some ways the omission to include these audio instruments in the Finance Act exemptions is all the more reprehensible, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) specifically raised this issue in Committee. He said:
In my constituency there have grown up over a number of years three or four very substantial international schools of English. Thousands of European students come every year on courses of varying length to learn English, and the teaching is done primarily through the medium of specially adapted tape lessons and recording devices".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1968; c. 619.]
It is to exactly these specially adapted recording devices that the Financial Secretary is now granting exemption. Why could this not have been done in 1968, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and I debated day and night to get these concessions along with those for other instruments for scientific, industrial and commercial use?
The Financial Secretary will, therefore, realise that we give a rather jaded but, nevertheless, real welcome to the concession. In this connection, however, in the case of these specialised audio educational instruments which we are now exempting, I should like to know what is to become of the recordings which are associated with them. Presumably, they will be taped. It would be anomalous to exempt the recording instruments entirely from the tax, but to leave the associated and specially adapted tapes at the level of 50 per cent. To exempt the player, but, at the same time, keep a 50 per cent. level of tax on the tape, is altogether anomalous.
Possibly exemption will follow automatically from the exemption already available for tapes which are not produced in quantity for general sale. If, however, that is not the case and the tapes are to bear a charge, in spite of the fact that the record player is to be exempted, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will undertake to consider exempting the tapes concerned on the same basis as the specialised tapes for purpose-built blind speaking/recording instruments are exempted when this year's Finance Bill is introduced.
With those comments I welcome the exemption. I question the wisdom of the new charges and I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us more encouragment, particularly on Flexel.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I support wholeheartedly the case made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mi. Alison) concerning the imposition of purchase tax on the I.C.I. product, Flexel. I hope not to repeat too much of what the hon. Member has said. He appears to have had from I.C.I. an even better brief than the hon. Member who represents the constituency. Between us, however, I hope that we present a strong enough case to cast serious doubt in the minds of Treasury officials and Ministers concerned.
I have considerable sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, because he was not originally associated with this matter. I understand from certain sources that the decision was taken a considerable time ago,

much longer ago than some of us imagined when we first took an interest in the matter. But my hon. and learned Friend does not gain any marks because, with his officials, he has not managed to devise a way round the problem, which will react severely on a section of people in my constituency.
My attention was drawn to the order a few days before the House rose for the Christmas Recess. As a result of information that was conveyed to me, I led a deputation to the Treasury on Wednesday, 17th December. The deputation consisted of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), Dr. J. S. Flanders, Mr. J. Mannion and Mr. G. Bell-Barker, from I.C.I. The order was to be moved in the House the following day, 18th December. Although I got no satisfaction at the meeting with my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, he told me next day in the House that the order would not be moved that day. I regarded that as a considerable victory and felt that we would get round the imposition.
The whole question of purchase tax being applied to Flexel arose, as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash has said, from a Norwegian firm operating in this country—but not to a great extent—who had complained to the Norwegian Government that Flexel did not bear purchase tax. The Norwegian Government took the matter to the E.F.T.A. Council and it was agreed that Flexel should carry purchase tax of 36⅔ per cent.
I am concerned about the way the Treasury has operated in this whole matter. I am convinced that public relations on the Treasury side were appallingly bad. The word "scandalous" has been used from the benches opposite and I concur in it. I.C.I. had no notification of the question being raised at the E.F.T.A. level. The first that the company knew about the matter was when two Customs and Excise officials visited the I.C.I. plant in my constituency and indicated that purchase tax was to be applied to Flexel. The method of collection of the tax was mentioned. That was the first indication.
The Norwegian firm communicated with the Norwegian Government, but no approach was made to I.C.I. by the Treasury to ascertain I.C.I.'s side of the case. We could, no doubt, have defended


our firm better than it was defended at the E.F.T.A. meeting.
The Flexel heating system was developed as a result of 10 years of extensive research by the Nobel Division of I.C.I. in my constituency. The installation and running costs of the system have proved to be competitive with other heating systems. The Flexel system, however, is particularly attractive in low cost housing, and especially in local authority housing—I know this through my local authority contacts in Scotland—where not only costs but floor space is strictly controlled. The fact that the system is built into the structure of the building and accordingly does not require any allocation of floor space for boilers, radiators, pipes, etc., or any additional structural work, particularly attracts local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. Commercial marketing was first commenced in 1964, since when Flexel has been installed in about 10,000 houses, at least 80 per cent. of them being in local authority ownership.
About 200 people are employed in the Flexel system within the United Kingdom. When the final commissioning of the new Flexel plant has been completed and the market in Europe, America and the Far East is established, there will be about 800 to 1,000 people working on the system. The plant will be completed early in 1970. The overseas market should be established by 1972 and expansion should be at about the rate of 20 per cent. per annum. This is a conservative estimate of growth.
The Financial Secretary has mentioned expansion in connection with the factory, but the factory has already been completed to full expansion to deal with the overseas orders that it hopes to get. Therefore, the money has already been invested. Systems such as this are, naturally, subject to severe competition from oil, gas and conventional electric systems. Prices are, therefore, a vital matter.
Having talked to the building contractors, I understand that gas and Flexel are almost level in price. This will certainly put Flexel at a great disadvantage. Flexel has gained in popularity because of the reasons I have indicated, but we will now lose out on price because of the application of purchase tax.
The question was raised in 1966 and I.C.I. has a letter dated 19th December that year stating that purchase tax would not be applied. I.C.I. then went ahead with promotion of the system in the United Kingdom and installed increased plant capacity in my constituency at a cost of £250,000 to cater not only for the United Kingdom market, but for expansion overseas. The justification for that expenditure was the expectation that Flexel would be free of purchase tax.
There is another question I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend. This plant has cost £250,000. It is in a development area. It is responsible for employing about 200 people. Being in a development area it can attract Government grant at 40 per cent., which, on £250,000, is £100,000. Is this going down the drain? Is there a likelihood of the whole exercise, the whole initiative, all the research for over 10 years, being placed in complete jeopardy, because of the Treasury not being able to find a way round the present system and so letting our own British firm be at the mercy of overseas competition? Is there a question of competitors, through Governments, trying to steal a march on I.C.I.?
The development grant question ought to be considered. Those of us interested in municipal housing know that the Government meet housing costs above 4 per cent. If Flexel were used and the local authorities were to receive the grant there would be a heavier outlay by the Government to meet the added cost over and above the 4 per cent. We know that there is already an added cost for the Government, but this would be an addition further to that, and therefore more money would be spent by the Government in helping the local authorities.
In the present competitive situation, I.C.I. tells me, and against systems which are free of tax, I.C.I. is convinced that it cannot pass on this tax and remain competitive. Accordingly, the rate of growth of the system in the home market would be seriously hampered. This would seriously affect the company's efforts in the export market. There is the additional complication that it has already accepted orders for a further 7,000 houses at the current price to be installed this year. A large proportion of the orders are for local authorities—Aberdeen,


Clydebank, Johnstone, Bearsden, Cumnock, Kilmarnock, the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Saltcoats, Harrow, Gateshead, Manchester, Darlington, Tam-worth, Coventry, Worcester, Limavady, Enniskillen, Moira—in Ireland—Lurgan. I.C.I. has accepted contracts to install at a fixed price to the extent of £1 million.
There will be consequences, however, beyond this. The firm is going ahead with trial installations in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the U.S.A. and Japan, and the firm foresees the possibility of high-potential markets there, but inevitably it has to pass through a trial and testing period in these territories, and it could extend over two or three years. This period can be sustained economically only by an expanding home market. Without this, I.C.I. must have second thoughts on its overseas activities. The imposition of the purchase tax, therefore, not only puts at hazard the Flexel project at home but involves the possible sacrifice of foreign currency earning activities.
After my meeting with the Financial Secretary on 17th December at the Treasury there was a further meeting with I.C.I. officials on 17th January. Following that the case for the tax not being applied was sent to the Treasury on 13th January, along with a draft text which I.C.I. thought could be accepted and would relieve the firm of paying this purchase tax. I have the text here, but I do not want to quote it now, and I am sure the Financial Secretary will have it. Those representations were turned down by the Treasury.
On behalf of I.C.I. Dr. Flanders replied on 27th January to a Treasury letter of 23rd January. I should like to quote part of this letter. Dr. Flanders said to the Financial Secretary:
You distinguish central heating systems from whole house systems based on flexible heating elements on the basis that in the former the energy is converted to heat at a central point and then transmitted via some heat-carrying medium to the heat sources located throughout the house, whereas the latter system converts the electrical energy to heat at the heat source itself. With respect, we do not consider this to be other than a technical distinction. It was, in fact, our understanding of our previous meeting that the reason for exempting central heating systems rested on the manner of construction and installation.

This was my firm conviction, too, when going into the matter.
You yourself"—
Dr. Flanders went on to my hon. and learned Friend—
have quoted the phrase 'large area, low temperature systems' and it is this characteristic which, in our view, makes the systems using flexible heating elements analogous to the central heating system. You suggest in the third paragraph of your letter that rigid panels could also be built into the fabric of a building This, I suppose, is theoretically possible, but is perhaps unlikely on a practical basis. However, for this reason we included in our suggested definition the requirement that the flexible element had, of necessity, to be incorporated in the fabric of the building. I still feel that we can clearly distinguish between the element which has to become part of the fabric of the building and the rigid panel which is often fastened to the fabric but really only causes minimal damage when removed.
The above comments do not cover all the points raised in your letter but will suffice to show that we still believe that there are good grounds for distinguishing heating systems using flexible elements. As already mentioned, we are very disappointed that you intend to proceed with this order. Quite apart from the long-term difficulties which this decision will cause, we shall immediately be faced with the problem of orders already accepted but which are unlikely to be carried out for 12 to 18 months. Quite apart from our continued objection in principle to the imposition of purchase tax on Flexel, it will be necessary for us to seek meetings with the appropriate officials to discuss some of the administrative difficulties which will arise.
That is signed by Dr. J. S. Flanders.
I appeal to the Financial Secretary not to proceed with this order. I do not suppose it is much use my making such an appeal, but I feel very strongly about this matter. I ask him not to proceed with the order even though this might break the rules, upset conventional attitudes and cut the red tape. Could he at least give early reconsideration to the matter of imposing purchase tax on Flexel?
In view of what has been said during this debate and in the light of the views put forward by the highly qualified people from I.C.I. who have given advice on this matter, surely the whole matter should be examined again when we are dealing with the Finance Bill. Can we not have a promise from the Financial Secretary that he will seriously consider this matter since he recognises that the order will have very bad effects, not only in my particular constituency, but throughout local authority areas which


have been making arrangements to embark on the installation of this heating system?
The outstanding success of the Flexel heating system is being placed in jeopardy by the Treasury decision to apply this tax. Employment in my constituency could be adversely affected by this decision. Let the Government turn their mind to how this tax can be withdrawn rather than to arguments as to how the tax should be kept on. This will avoid the adverse criticisms which have followed their actions, made by the people concerned with the growth of British industry.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Allison) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) have unveiled before the House a thoroughly disgraceful story. Having listened to what they have said, I cannot not help wondering whether this difficulty might never have arisen if the Government had not fallen in to the habit over the years of treating their E.F.T.A. colleagues in such a scurvy manner and, since the element of competition between the Norwegian and Scottish product is a limited one, if there had been a better understanding and sympathy on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the Councils of E.F.T.A.
I wish to raise a much narrower and more parochial point. I wish to devote my remarks to paragraph 3 of the order. The Financial Secretary may be glad to hear that I extend to that paragraph an unqualified welcome, so far as it goes, but it reflects the casual drafting shown in the original extension of purchase tax to textiles in the last Budget. It is characteristic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he prefers to do ill by stealth. He allowed us to believe that it was a simple little matter of extending purchase tax in an effort to catch such candy floss society frills as linen table napkins, but we gradually began to discover that the extension was much more widely drawn.
One of the victims caught unwittingly in the net was the textile industry in Eastern Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We cannot on this order have a wide-ranging debate on purchase tax. The hon. Gentleman can only discuss the specific changes which are proposed in the order itself.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is precisely what I was intending to do.
The point to which I was referring was the exemption under paragraph 3 of the polyolefin fabrics under sub-paragraph (b). As the Financial Secretary has pointed out, this had been strongly requested in the jute textile industry of Dundee and in my constituency because the product caught by purchase tax was designed purely in the form of a commercial end use for the future. The polypropylene packaging is intended to perform exactly the same purpose.
I wish to pay tribute to the Paymaster-General. He is about the only member of the Government who appreciates that administrative inconvenience is no excuse for imposing taxes which make no economic sense. It was largely thanks to his efforts that a solution to this particular anomaly was discovered and incorporated in paragraph 3 of the order. Unfortunately, however, no sooner does one eliminate one anomaly than one is liable to create another. One firm in my constituency in Dundee, Messrs. W. G. Grant, has discovered that although it was led to understand that its particular predicament would be covered by the exemption contained in paragraph 3 it is not covered. I notified the Financial Secretary that I would raise this point, which has also been raised with the Customs and Excise and with the Treasury.
Messrs. W. G. Grant manufacture two products. The first is a polypropylene windbreak, and the second is a container for nurserymen's trees called a "rootainer". Both of these products are still caught by purchase tax and fall out-with the scope of the exemption in paragraph 3, although they are wholly and exclusively produced for commercial end users. The windbreaks do not qualify for exemption under the order because the polypropylene tape is twisted, with the result that some of the strands exceed one millimeter in width. The "rootainers" are caught because they


are made of acrylic waste, which is not one of the synthetics now enumerated in the order.
In each case, the purchase tax adds about 17 per cent. to the end price. That is because provision has to be made for a notional wholesale mark-up, although both products are sold direct to the commercial customer. In the case of the "rootainers", directly competitive products are not caught and enjoy exemption under the order, because they are made either of hessian or of polypropylene.
Messrs. Grant explained their problem to the Customs and Excise when the order was under discussion. They formed the impression that their predicament would be dealt with and did not press their case because they recognised that the major issue was the polypropylene packaging, and they did not wish to hold up the exemption for that.
Now they seem to encounter an attitude bordering on indifference at the Customs and Excise—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: No.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That happens to be a fact, though the hon. Gentleman may be unaware of it.
They are told that they should stop twisting the polypropylene tape in the windbreaks, although that would make them useless as windbreaks, and it is suggested that, in the case of the "rootainers", they should try putting a frilly edge round them which would add to the cost of the end product and serve no conceivable purpose save as a lasting reminder of the folly of the purchase tax rules.
Messrs. Grant are still trying to find a way of resolving their problem with the Customs and Excise. But the basic position is quite clear. Purchase tax is supposed to be a tax on consumer goods. The House will notice from Section 3(a) that that is precisely the point dealt with by the order. The tax should apply to goods which are sold retail and, by inference, not to goods sold to commercial users. I do not ask the Financial Secretary to produce a solution to Messrs. Grants' predicament tonight, but I do expect him to see that an acceptable solution is found in due course to what admittedly is a small but indefensible anomaly.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: Like the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I welcome Section 3 of the order which is concerned with polypropylene. During the Budget debate, the hon. Gentleman tabled an Amendment which was not called by Mr. Speaker, and we got nowhere. Subsequently, meetings were arranged between the jute manufacturers, and polypropylene manufacturers and officials of the Customs and Excise with a view to reaching some agreement. Again, they got nowhere.
Shortly afterwards I approached my hon. and learned Friend's predecessor, who has now received his just reward and is in the Cabinet as Paymaster-General. He put in super-human service in bringing about this change, and it is no doubt due to his efforts that we have this order incorporating the change before us tonight.
In my constituency, over 16,000 people are employed in the jute industry, and approximately 600 are at present employed in the polypropylene section. Had this tax been imposed on polypropylene, it would have finished that section completely.
However, the important point does not merely concern the jobs of those 600 employees. It is that, recently, there was trouble in Pakistan and there was a risk that the jute crop would be in danger. That would have been a disaster to those employed in the industry in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Angus. In view of that, it was essential to keep the polypropylene industry alive. The jute industry, the machinery which weaves the jute and the people who operate the machinery can be quickly changed over to weaving polypropylene instead. So it was not merely a question of the existing 600 jobs. There was a danger to the future of the 16,000 jute jobs which might have been affected by the change. In view of that, this is an important change for my constituency which is greatly welcomed.
I want to associate myself with the other points which have been made, but I do not want to see the order delayed to take care of them. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will see what can be done in the future to take care of them,


but it is important not to endanger the main point, which is Section 3.
The hon. Member for South Angus referred to the predicament of Messrs. W. G. Grant. I too have been approached by this firm, which has factories in my constituency. Their rootainer is quite a small article. It is not sold on the retail market to the general public. It is simply a cheap and effective means of keeping together the roots of plants used in horticulture. This product is an off-shoot of the jute industry, which is experiencing considerable trouble at present. It is an enterprise which should be encouraged, since it does not compete with other commodities.
Coming on to the point about Flexel heating, a medium-sized firm in my constituency has taken over a new factory in the last year or two and has gone to considerable expense to produce and market this product. If this is in danger it will be a serious blow for firms of this kind. I am not referring to firms the size of I.C.I. which can carry this kind of thing without endangering their future in any way. When we come to the smaller and medium-sized firms which are also affected and have laid out considerable capital sums to produce something which they were led to believe would not carry purchase tax, it seems quite wrong that it should now be changed at this late date to bring it within the order after they have incurred this capital expenditure.
I should not like my hon. and learned Friend to delay or withdraw the Instrument to cover these two points. I think that he should look at these two points again in the near future to see whether anything can be done about them.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I warmly welcome paragraph 5 of the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1969, which states:
In croup I9A, under the heading 'Not chargeable under this Group', after paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—

'3. Instruments which are—

(i) suitable only for use in a course of instruction; and
(ii) capable of operation only from mains supply; and
(iii) incapable of erasing instructional material prerecorded on magnetic tape or other recording material'."

This provision will be a great boon to schools and other educational institutions.

I understand that during my unavoidable absence from the Chamber the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was rather sourly inquiring why it had taken so long for the Treasury to make this alteration. Perhaps I can assist him. It is because the Opposition are so ineffective, so impotent, that they were unable to present the case properly to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Alison: We presented the case most effectively in the Finance Bill, 1968, but it was turned down.

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman's idea of what is an effective presentation is rather different from that of those of us who take a more detailed view about what is effective and ineffective.
My attention was drawn to the difficulties which arose under Group 19A when the headmaster of St. Bernadette's Roman Catholic school, in my constituency, indicated that his school wished to purchase a machine for teaching children various languages.
St. Bernadette's School enjoys a high reputation in Harrow. It is always anxious to improve its educational methods. Therefore, I listened with the keenest attention to the representations which were made to me. They were to the effect that the langauge machine in question would cost about £70 and that the purchase tax would amount to about £14 or £15.
On hearing this I was horrified and communicated instantly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheatham (Mr. Harold Lever), who was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. As was to be expected, he was most receptive to my representations, as indeed would be any member of this Government of adventurous hope. My right hon. Friend said that there were difficulties about drawing regulations in such a way that machines required purely for educational purposes would escape the tax, but, nevertheless, difficulties would not be allowed to come in the way of a sensible approach to the problem. That was the attitude we normally expect from any member of this Government.
My right hon. Friend instituted appropriate inquiries, got people to work on the issue, and finally produced a draft of the order; and, by virtue of paragraph 5,


instruments used for instructional purposes will escape the tax.
The Treasury deserves congratulation. The order also indicates the way that democracy works in this country. Here is a situation where the citizen finds some provision which is annoying and not conducive to helping to educate children. Through the normal processes he approaches his Member of Parliament who subsequently makes representations to the Government and, because we are fortunate in having a Government who are responsive to this kind of thing, we get an alteration in the law of the land.
I congratulate the Financial Secretary on what he has done. His praises will be sung by those of my constituents with children at this school. There will be praise throughout the land for him and the Government for this action.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: With leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the debate. I will start with the less controversial questions and come back to the serious matter of Flexel later.
I am glad to find that the eloquent representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) were so successful. I cannot ascribe the failure of earlier representations to the inadequacy with which they were made, but there were circumstances which made it difficult to give this relief before. There has been a growth in the number of specialised instructional intruments available. It was not possible before to give this relief, because the audio instruments had not then developed a sufficient degree of specialisation for us to be able to distinguish them, for tax purposes, from the general purpose instrument which it is intended to charge.
As we have explained many times, it is impossible to tax things according to the use to which they are eventually put. One must tax them at the wholesale point, before one knows how they will be used. It is now possible to say, in certain cases, that there are instruments which comply with the definition contained in the order, and to make the exemption which one would wish to make.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am a little confused by that statement. How does it relate to paragraph 3(a), which makes

precisely this definition, according to use, in the case of bonded fibre fabric.

Mr. Taverne: One can see from the order precisely how this relief can now be given. There are three factors. First, the instrument must be suitable only for use for instruction. Second, it must be capable of use only from mains supply. Third, if it is not suitable for use only for instruction, the purchase tax exemption could not be given. It is because there are instruments designed and suitable only for such use that the exemption can be given. That proves my point.
One cannot exempt on the grounds that something which can be used for many purposes will be used only for one. One cannot possibly say, for example, that tapes, which can be used for many purposes, should be exempted, because one does not know, at the time that the tax is imposed, whether they will be used for educational or non-educational purposes.

Mr. Alison: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? What about the tapes for these specialised instruments? By definition, the tapes used in these instruments can be used only for educational purposes. Presumably, therefore, the tapes escape the tax as well.

Mr. Taverne: No, they do not escape. The tax applies to all tapes. One could not differentiate tapes in the way that one can differentiate these instruments.
I turn now to the polyolefin exemption. The product of which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) spoke, and which is manufactured by Grants, is not a polyolefin product but an acrylic, so it does not come within the terms of the order. But I can assure him that this matter is under consideration, and that I hope that a solution will be found that will be favourable for the firm concerned.
I turn now to the question which has dominated the debate, that of the treatment of Flexel. Strong representations have been made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig).
First, the history of what happened. This product, when first produced, was claimed not to be subject to purchase tax.


Representations were made by Norwegian competitors that this was contrary to the E.F.T.A. Treaty. This was considered, and it was decided that it should bear purchase tax. It was then modified. The modified product was discussed with Customs, and Customs agreed that, as modified and in the way in which it was to be installed, it would not be subject to purchase tax as the purchase tax law then stood.
Of course, no Customs officials can give any undertaking that purchase tax will not be changed, and that items which at one time are not subject to the tax will remain exempt for all time. Nor did they give such an undertaking. They did agree that that particular product at that time was not subject to purchase tax.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash says that there was gross maladministration because we are now bringing it into tax in response to a foreign objection. What he is, in effect, saying is that we are guilty of gross maladministration because we happened to comply with the E.F.T.A. Treaty. If a case is made that there is discrimination as between like products we cannot defy E.F.T.A. We cannot disregard E.F.T.A. and say that because the foreign competitor is only a small one we shall deal with one like product differently from another.
I must admit a point which caused me much more unease was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, about the notification of I.C.I. It is certainly true that where there is not sufficient technical information available of course the technical information is obtained. Here all the technical information was available. All the details were in the hands of the Customs. It would normally be the case if we wanted to approach anyone that we would approach the trade associations, but here the trade association did not take the same view, for obvious reasons, as I.C.I. about the particular exemption continuing. Nevertheless, it may well have been true that when the case was prepared I.C.I. should have been informed. That may well have been so, but it would not normally be the case because one would proceed through the trade association.

Mr. Manuel: Although my hon. and learned Friend says there is some doubt whether I.C.I. should have been approached, he will have no doubt whatever that the Norwegian firm approached his Government and the Norwegian Government approached E.F.T.A., which approved the case which the Norwegian Government gave to it.

Mr. Taverne: The Norwegian firm was the firm which made the complaint to the Norwegian Government and the Norwegian Government then brought the complaint before E.F.T.A. Because I was worried on this point I have looked most carefully at the presentation of the case before the Committee of Trade Experts. It was extremely carefully and ingeniously argued by the United Kingdom delegation, but here were two products obviously in competition and it was open for the Committee to take the view that these were like products.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash said that they were parallel but not like products. There was a distinction there, but it was not perverse of the majority of the committee to have taken the view that they were like products. They obviously had certain elements in common. They are both
Elements for electrically operated ceiling, wall or floor heating systems, being elements which consist of electrically conductive or resistive material in strip or sheet form between two layers of insulating material.
After the E.F.T.A. points had been raised and after it was agreed that we had to put the position right we could do one of two things. We could either make both products subject to tax or make them both exempt from tax.
What I wished to see was that both should be exempt from tax. This, I think, would not have made any difference to the revenue. It would only make a difference to the revenue if that line could not be drawn between them and various heating appliances and there would then be a danger because many millions would be at stake. The question has to be faced: could we somehow distinguish Flexel and Eswa and put them in the non-taxable category?

Mr. Alison: Surely the case is simpler than that. The fact is that Customs and Excise had already determined that Flexel was not subject to tax. If Eswa


was then found to be of the same kind of element or material as Flexel it follows logically that Eswa would automatically like wise be included. It is not a question of including both, but if they are like products the tax automatically applies to either product.

Mr. Taverne: It is not as simple as that. One of the points which was strongly argued by the United Kingdom delegation at the committee was that because it was possible to distinguish them for purchase tax purposes they were not like products. This argument was not accepted. It is possible that a distinction can be drawn for purchase tax purposes even between like "products". Once one had to treat them alike one could no longer say that because it might be technically argued that Flexel was a system whereas Eswa was clearly an apparatus one could draw the distinction on the grounds of one being an apparatus and the other a system. That could no longer be done. They both had to be treated alike. From whatever angle one looked at it is became impossible to draw a logical and defensible distinction such as the hon. Member and my hon. Friends have asked us to draw.
One could not say that this was a building material and that it could, therefore, be exempt because there are other products which could be regarded as such. One consists of electric wires running between two layers of materials, one insulating polystyrene and one chipboard, which are placed between ceiling joists, the insulating layer forcing the heat down into the room. Again, there is an American produced panel which was closer to other heating appliances. They are also building materials or could be regarded as such and could not be said to be on the non-taxable side of the line.
The basic problem which we faced was that there are three sources of heating which one must regard for tax purposes. There are free standing appliances, appliances fixed to the fabric of the building, which are fittings, and appliances built into the fabric itself. In Category I, one has what the layman would call ordinary electric fires providing radiant or black heat, or both, and spreading heat by convection or a fan or both. The second category, fittings, contains the same varieties of fire as the first and

many are to be found also in Category III, that is, appliances built into the fabric itself which include radiant bar fires and the convector type which can in certain circumstances be built into the wall of the room.
There could be no possible justification, and I examined this as sympathetically as I possibly could, for discriminating for tax purposes between Flexel and Eswa, on the one hand, and heating panels, on the other, nor between heating panels and built in or otherwise fixed traditional electric fires or between those and freestanding appliances. If we did draw a line the whole of the revenue in this field would be at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked whether I would reconsider the matter, or whether I had a closed mind on the subject. Of course, I have not got a closed mind on the subject. I have not yet seen the letter from Dr. Flanders which he read. It was, as he revealed, written yesterday, but it has not reached me yet. We shall have to consider this carefully.
Having looked at it from every possible angle and approach with the aim of seeking to exempt from tax both Flexel and the Eswa products I could come to only one conclusion on everything which I have so far considered and, unfortunately, I feel that both must be taxable.

Mr. Alison: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman look at one further possibility, namely, that some sort of offset concession could be made to the Norwegian Government, for example, on tariffs which could counter balance the purchase tax and leave them in the same net position? An order under the import duties legislation or tariff arrangements could be made. Something simple like that could be done because, under the Customs and Excise, Flexel is exemptable.

Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman is introducing complications which are quite impossible to envisage. If one begins saying that one particular product must be exempted from tariff although otherwise there is discrimination within E.F.T.A., one gets into a mire from which it is very difficult to extricate oneself.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate the sympathetic way in which my hon. and


learned Friend has dealt with the representations made here tonight. I referred to this year's Finance Bill. Could he promise the House that he will take the opportunity to see that the matter is very fully and thoroughly examined with a view to seeing that Flexel get the relief for which we have been asking?

Mr. Taverne: I assure my hon. Friend that any new suggestion which comes forward will be carefully considered. I have already made clear which way my sympathies lie and have lain throughout. I have not yet, for example, seen the further argument adduced by Dr. Flanders. If by any chance any further new factors brought forward could persuade one that such a distinction—which I have felt so far to be impossible—could be made, there would be opportunity to do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1730), dated 4th December 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

ROYAL NAVY (RUM RATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The threat to abolish the rum issue in the Royal Navy is a matter of considerable gravity, and I make no apology for raising it in the House today.
As a wartime sailor in the Royal Navy who remembers with pride and affection the comradeship of the lower deck, I am glad to have this opportunity, as a Member of Parliament, to bring before the House the views which have been expressed to me in the many letters on the subject which I have received from serving sailors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see some of my hon. Friends here to support me in this debate. I shall be more than delighted to offer them sippers or gulpers at a more appropriate moment than the present.
It is clear from the volume of correspondence which I have received and from recent reports in the Press that the decision of the Admiralty Board to abolish the rum issue has aroused deep anger and resentment in the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, I know, carefully consider the case put to him tonight. I hope that, as a result of the argument deployed, he will feel able to review the Admiralty Board's decision and reprieve the Navy's rum ration.
I shall not deal with the long and distinguished part which the daily tot of rum has played in the history of the Royal Navy. The history of our Navy is the history of our nation. Our freedom and our system of democracy have evolved and developed over the centuries behind the shield of the Royal Navy, a navy manned by men of courage, skill and endurance.
All are aware of the enormous changes which have taken place not only in the technology of the Navy, but in the standards and conditions of life aboard ship. But not only the ships and the weapons have changed. The men of the Navy have changed, too. Education and the need for technical skills have contributed to a dramatic rise in the standard and the


expectations of those who serve on the lower deck.
The case against the abolition of the rum issue is not based upon a desire to defend or to hang on to tradition. To be fair to the Admiralty Board, it does not say that because the press gang, hard tack and the rope's end went out long ago, so ought the rum ration. To be fair to the Under-Secretary of State, it was made abundantly clear to the House on 17th December that the abolition of the rum issue is not an economy measure. If were an economy measure, it would be absolutely intolerable, and the Navy would be right to make its voice heard with great vigour.
For the basis of the decision, I turn to the official announcement on 17th December last year in a Written Answer to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew):
The Admiralty Board concludes that the rum issue is no longer compatible with the high standards of efficiency required now that the individual's tasks in ships are concerned with complex, and often delicate, machinery and systems on the correct functioning of which people's lives may depend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 341.]
If that were true, if it could clearly be shown that alcoholic drink in the small and controlled quantities that are available to the lower deck was a danger to operational efficiency of the Navy and to the lives of those who served in the Navy, there would be a clear case for following the practice of other navies and banning all alcoholic drink from ships of the Royal Navy at sea. If the Admiralty's case is right, the Navy should be dry of all spirits, but I do not believe that the Admiralty's case is right.
What is the truth of the Admiralty Board's claim? What evidence is there to support their contention?

Mr. Roy Roebuck: They were drunk at the time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I may well be able during the course of my remarks to demonstrate that there is more probability of an officer being drunk on duty than of a member of the lower deck being drunk on duty.
Has it been established by medical evidence that rum is detrimental to health? I must tell by hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that there is some evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Roebuck: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wellbeloved: There is some evidence from people who serve at sea in Her Majesty's ships and in the Merchant Navy that a tot of rum can have a stabilising effect upon the stomach, and this is indeed a matter of considerable importance.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Fleet about to engage the enemy in a tempestuous sea. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: This is a serious debate. If there is too much interruption, I may have to hang an hon. Member from the yardarm.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We were about to engage the enemy, Mr. Speaker; let us proceed upon that course.
A tempestuous sea is raging. Men are piped to a meal before action. If they can take their tot, they can consume their food; if they consume their food, they are able to face the coming action with greater strength and greater determination. If the medical evidence is not there, will my hon. Friend explain why the Admiralty Board took this decision?
What research has been carried out into the operational efficiency of those who take rum compared with temperance ratings who take the 3d.-a-day grog money in lieu? Is there any evidence of a careful scientific evaluation to show that temperance ratings are more efficient in the discharge of their duties than those who take the rum issue? Let my hon. Friend tell the House the facts. What evidence can the Admiralty Board offer to justify a dry lower deck stripped of its rum issue with a wet wardroom with spirits still available?
Is there any evidence available to show that the rum tot affects the operational efficiency of the Royal Navy? Certainly there is no evidence readily available. My hon. Friend's Department had the greatest difficulty searching out the details to reply to Questions which I tabled this week asking for figures of men charged with and found guilty of being under the influence of alcohol while


on duty in the Royal Navy. It is clear from the letter my hon. Friend sent to me and which I received today—and I am grateful for the promptness with which he arranged that reply—that no statistics spread over a reasonable period exist which could substantiate the Admiralty Board's decision. Indeed, it would be difficult, under Section 28 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, to produce meaningful statistics.
Under that Section, a seaman in the Royal Navy could be drunk at home on leave and be charged. The Section says:
A person is drunk within the meaning of this section if owing to the influence of alcohol or any drug, whether alone or in combination with any other circumstances, he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty or with any duty which he might be called upon to perform, or behaves in a disorderly manner or in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's service.
That is a very wide Section. No wonder no meaningful statistics are available.
The statistics available really do not mean anything. We have statistics for officers charged between 1960 and 1969 with being under the influence of drink while on duty. Only 18 cases are reported, a small and insignificant number when we consider that 10,000 officers are engaged in the Royal Navy. We would need to examine with considerable care the records of the courts-martial of these officers to see whether the offences were committed on duty or whether some were committed while the officers were on shore leave. I doubt whether any concern drunkenness while the officers were on leave. The important thing is the cases which were brought to trial, and I hope my hon. Friend will make available the records for study.
In any group of men who live closely together an esprit de corps springs up, and it is not beyond our comprehension and understanding to realise that, if an officer became intoxicated while on duty, he would be in a much better position for his colleagues to protect him, to put him in his cabin and tuck him up in his bunk, unnoticed, uncharged and unconvicted.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: This has happened on the lower deck as well, because I have helped to put a colleague to bed there.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I know that esprit de corps exists on the lower deck. I have put to bed and been put to bed myself. But the risks are greater on the lower deck, because officers and petty officers are on duty. The risks of exposure, of being caught, charged and convicted are immensely greater for the lower deck than for the officers. No wonder there is a wide difference between the statistics for the seamen on the lower deck who have been charged and the officers of the ward room who apparently and fortunately have escaped that fate.
I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as far as one can ascertain, very few of the ratings involved committed the offence during the course of duty. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has acknowledged this in his letter. I believe that I have given a fair summary of it, but I can quote it if necessary.

Mr. Roebuck: Let us have it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend writes:
I am afraid that Punishment Returns do not enable us to say the extent to which these offences"—
the offence of being under the influence of drink while on duty—
were committed on or off duty, but there is, I think, little doubt that relatively few of them took place on duty.
It is clear that, among the very large number of seamen charged, very few cases involved the offence being committed while on duty.
Can my hon. Friend tell us how many of those who were charged on duty were habitual drunkards? The Royal Navy is no different from any other section of the community. There are alcoholics in every walk of life. One could get 20 or 30 or 40 alcoholics in the Royal Navy who would distort completely the statistical returns on drunkenness. How many within the total have been convicted time and again for the same offence? The statistics available are meaningless and I am sure my hon. Friend acknowledges this. Perhaps he can tell us what is the basis of the decision. It is obviously not health or drunkenness. What is it? What is the evidence?
In view of the lack of positive evidence for the Admiralty Board's decision, it is


obvious that the matter cannot be left as it is, with this threat of the abolition of the rum ration. The Admiralty Board and my hon. Friend have a responsibility to publish the facts, if facts indeed exist, upon which the decision has been based. Parliament and the Royal Navy are entitled to know the reasons for the decision.
On Monday, 19th January, my hon. Friend was asked what consultations were undertaken before it was decided to abolish the rum issue. He replied that opinions had been sought from a cross-section of officers and men in commands at home and abroad. I challenge him and the Admiralty Board to publish the details of the method and the scope of these so-called consultations, and, above all, to publish uncensored the views expressed among the men.
Is it true that suggestions were made that rum should be issued to men as they came off duty rather than when they were going on duty? Provision is made for such a course in Queen's Regulations. Queen's Regulation 4923, paragraph 4, says:
The time at which the spirit ration is to be issued daily is to be decided by the Captain, having regard to the nature of the ship's service, the employment of the ship's company, the climate, and any other relevant circumstances.
Thus, there exists within the existing Queen's Regulations power to put in operation the very sound and sensible suggestions which, I am informed, were made during these so-called consultations. What a pity that those suggestions were not adopted.
This is a serious matter, because my hon. Friends will have seen the recent headlines of the newspapers. The headline of the Sun, a few days ago, was—
Yo-ho-ho! Rebel Jacks threaten mutiny"—
expressing not my views but those of serving seamen in the Royal Navy.
Then that very widely circulated and well-read paper the Daily Mirror, on Monday of this week, with the headline:
Rum plea by sailors in black armbands.
There was a quotation from a serving seaman, who said:
A lot of men are saying they will get out or not sign on for another term when the tot goes.

Then the Evening News of today:
'Our tot won't be sunk without trace' warns crew
'Rum do' battle in the Royal Navy.
These are all indications of the anger and resentment which is building up.
As a sop, my hon. Friend is offering to ease this anger of the lower decks by a minute increase in the volume of beer that might be purchased by a rating. The strict limit of one pint or two 12 oz. cans as laid down in regulations is to be increased. To what? The magnificent sum of three cans—one and a half pints. Even this sop to the anger of the men is limited by Queen's Regulations, because beer can be carried in ships only if stowage space will allow it. The bigger the ship, the more beer. Men doing arduous duty on detached service in small ships may not have any beer at all.
As for the suggestion, put in the delicate words of the official announcement, that as a concession for the loss of the rum seamen
C.P.O., P.O. and R.M.N.C.O. will now be allowed to buy small quantities of commercial spirits",
I can only say that this will be a constant reminder to the majority of the lower deck of the unfairness and the unscientific foundation upon which the decision to abolish rum has been based.
I now turn to my main point. It may be that the Admiralty Board has all the facts and has carried out a most careful survey based upon scientific evaluation. It may be that one-eighth of a pint of rum mixed with two parts of water, consumed regularly once a day by seamen over the last two or three centuries, can now be shown by their Lordships of the Admiralty Board, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be detrimental to a man's ability to do his duty and to impair his judgment. If this is so for the lower deck, what has my hon. Friend to say about the other side of the coin, the wardroom?
In the officers' wardroom, wine, whisky, brandy, pink gin—spirits in all their varieties and all their alcoholic strengths, will still be available. What a picture this presents of the Navy of the 'seventies: the keen eyed, clear-headed sober, rum-less, seaman, manning the complex machinery and advanced systems in Her Majesty's ships, ready for instant action, capable of clear judgment.
What of the command structure—the ships' officers, the officers on the bridge, the officers in the other nerve centres of command, the officers who will have to take almost instant action on the information supplied by the rumless seamen manning the machinery and the systems? What of their operational efficiency? What of the lives that depend upon their judgment?
If one-eighth of a pint of rum mixed with two parts of water is, in the words of the Admiralty Board,
…no longer compatible with the high standard of efficiency required",
what does the board have to say about the almost unrestricted availability of strong spirits in the officers' wardroom? Queen's Regulations dealing with the availability of spirits for officers are very short. There is just one paragraph. For lower-deck ratings it extends, of course, into many paragraphs.
The only regulation applying to officers is that a captain may at his discretion limit the amount of liquor consumed by an officer, taking into account the amount that is consumed and matters of that nature—very wide, with no restrictions at all really. It is there, available. That is to say nothing of the officer who may have provided, unknown to the captain, a bottle for himself, and tucked it away in his cabin.
I do not want to give the impression of naval officers staggering about half drunk to discharge their duties. I hold that they, like the British seaman of today, are men of intelligence who know their duty and would not indulge to such an extent as to endanger their own lives and those of their comrades on board. Let us be quite clear, there are not two types of human being in the Navy. If the spirit rum can, as the Admiralty Board claims, impair the operational efficiency of the lower deck, the self-same criterion must apply to alcoholic spirits in the wardroom. Yet the Admiralty Board is not recommending that the Royal Navy should abolish drink. Little wonder that the ordinary serving seaman is outraged by the abolition of the rum issue. He sees it as discrimination—and discrimination at its very worst, because it is discrimination in a fighting service and is based upon the arbitrary division of rank and class.
I defy the Minister to justify this. The date for the abolition of the rum issue is 1st August this year. I implore him to reconsider this matter. So deep is the anger and resentment that there is a real danger that the ghost of the Nore, of Spithead and of Invergordon may once again stalk the Fleet. Once again, loyal and brave men who wish only to serve their country may be driven too far by an Admiralty Board insensitive and blind to the spirit of the lower deck.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite a number of hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. Brief speeches will help.

9.42 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Speaking as one who cannot claim to suffer the privations inflicted upon the lower deck by the Minister through this new and arbitrary decision of the Admiralty Board, I still must tell the House, in support of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved), who has so ably and movingly set forth his case, that I represent a constituency which, more than any other, has been plunged in gloom and horror by this iniquitous decision. This has put the manning ports and the surrounding district in a state of depression which, I am afraid, must find outlets not only here, but elsewhere.
I cannot understand the rationale for this decision. It is true that it is undesirable for officers or men to be drunk on duty. I have met many liberty boats coming from the shore and it is far more likely to be at that time that the definition of drunkenness is most used. It is not the medical profession, by the way, who make the diagnosis of alleged drunkenness in the Navy: the executive decides. Therefore, this tricky decision has never fallen to my lot.

Mr. Roebuck: For what purposes are rum and other drinks like this prescribed medicinally in the Royal Navy?

Dr. Bennett: In all cases of exhaustion and shock. It is not unknown, when the duty medical officer has been called out to deal with an accident, for him to be suffering from this when seeking to aid his shipmates.
This decision, then—"diagnosis" it might be called if it were not a lay decision—rests with the executive. As the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has so ably quoted from the Queen's Regulations, the Articles of War, drunkenness means being incapable of performing one's duty by reason of drink. Usually, the duty of someone coming back to the ship is to turn in to his hammock, and it must be a poor fellow who cannot manage that—although it is a gymnastic feat for those who are not used to it.
Surely the administration of one traditional tot of the "purser's bubbly" is not likely to plunge the sailors into the ravages of alcoholism. Even men with a build more similar to that of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) than to mine are not likely to have their blood alcohol raised to an unendurable level, such as would make them incapable of duty, by one tot. He is a crafty citizen who manages to get a second one.
On these questions of efficiency, there is medical evidence which goes far to prove the wrongness of a decision like this. I have always been interested in the arguments that were deployed leading up to the introduction of the breathalyser. They were based on the curve of blood alcohol relative to the ability of the subject being examined to carry out tests.
While the disability arises steeply on a high blood alcohol, there is in the curve a phase, round about 30 mg. in the bloodstream, where the responses become more efficient, quicker and better. This curve has been in physiological textbooks for centuries, even when I studied medicine—[Laughter.]—not quite as far back as the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), but at least in my time.
Therefore, the argument works the other way and it is, possibly, recognised and known, not only clinically, but in ordinary life, that a small dose of alcohol may improve the performance of the recipient. This therefore makes the abolition of the humble tot all the more inconceivable and incomprehensible. It is an iniquitous decision which certainly has not done anything to commend the discussions which must have gone on in the Admiralty Board.
Furthermore, Queen's Regulation 4923, which as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford quoted, enables the tot to be issued when a man is coming off duty and not going on duty. That argument in turn, therefore, must fall. I cannot see that there is any excuse for this decision. I must repeat, in supporting the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, that it is most incongruous that the lower deck should be deprived of their small quantity when the ward room is not touched. This is absolute lunacy.
I would, however, say this, and it is a sobering thought. I have had a suspicion, which has come, perhaps, from various casual observations made by those in office, that there has been an element inside the Admiralty which has long agitated for the abolition of the tot. Even when my party was in power that agitation existed, but it was resisted. It was firmly kept down. It is a terrible thing that the Government have capitulated to the pressure. I am convinced that if we do not watch it, we shall find that this is part of the argument and that the whole Navy will be deprived of all its spirits and drinks on board if this victory goes through unresisted. Therefore, all the ships will become dry, and where will the American Navy be able to go for a little liquid refreshment when it is in port?
I therefore condemn this decision, my constituency condemns it wholeheartedly, and I join the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and all the others around me who are here to signal their disapproval.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that, unfortunately, this debate must end at half-past ten. Brief speeches will help.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I wish to say a word in support of my hon. Friend Nelson Wellbeloved, Member for Erith and Crayford—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may mention his hon. Friend's constituency, but not his name.

Mr. Wilkins: I am probably the oldest Navy man in the House and I have some recollections of the issue of rum rations


in the Navy. I am not myself a teetotaller, contrary to what many people seem to think, but I have some concern for temperance. There is a vast difference between temperance and being a teetotaller.
I deplore this decision by the Lords of the Admiralty, and I do so on grounds which my hon. Friend disdained. I am still a traditionalist. I believe in many of the old traditions which we have, whether in the Services or in the House or in this country. With experience I am able to say that seven bells is probably the most welcome signal that a sailor serving in the Navy hears. This is a fact. Seven bells had some sort of significance and still has for those who served and who serve in the Royal Navy.
If I thought for one moment that the Lords of the Admiralty could produce evidence to show that there is excessive consumption of Navy rum, what we call grog—it is very diluted and goes to the lower deck, even chief petty officers have neat rum, but not the lower deck—and if the consumption could be shown to impair the efficiency of the crews, I would think there would be some reason why we should support the Board of Admiralty in the proposal which they now make.
However, I never saw this at any time during my service in the Navy. The only time I ever saw a man who was—shall we say?—just a little "under the weather" was on a man's birthday when, by tradition, we would hand him our tots of rum and he, may be, would drink the lot, depending upon his capacity, or he might take only a sip and hand the rest back. On those very odd occasions I have seen a man become the worse for wear as a result of rum. But I have also seen an admiral like that.—[Laughter.] Yes. I report this because I am quite certain that he is dead now.
Those in the Chamber at the moment who have served in the Royal Navy know that on Christmas Day everything is free, everything goes by the board, and the crew and the officers and everyone have what they believe to be a good time, and I have on such an occasion seen a captain—not drunk, perhaps, but very, very merry as a result of the lads having treated him on his day round the ship's divisions.
To be serious about it, I do not think this case has been made. I really do not think so. I cannot see how it can so happen that at any rate any substantial number of a crew can in any way be affected by the rum ration.
My main objection to this proposal, however, is that this issue is a very, very long tradition in the Royal Navy. I think that this proposal is looked upon as being very derogatory. It is something to which the men in the Royal Navy are very much opposed, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will give us some facts, if he can, which will substantiate what amounts to an allegation that there is proof or evidence of incapacity on the part of men in the Navy to do their appointed jobs.
I admit that we are in a highly automated age in the Services, but we need to have evidence which will convince the House that it is right to take away this ration of rum. I doubt very much whether this evidence will be forthcoming.

9.54 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is a terrible day—

Mr. Roebuck: Hoist the main brace!

Mr. William Hamlin: Shiver me timbers!

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: —because rum has been issued to the Royal Navy for 200 years and now the issue is to be abolished. Of course, I regret breaking with any old, hallowed tradition in the Royal Navy.
I regret anything that might be thought by the public to reduce the privileges of sailors in the Royal Navy. I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) who introduced the debate that they do as good a job of work as anybody in the country and deserve all they can get from an often skin-flint Government. I know that in this view I am joined by a "very hon. Member" who is known to all of us, namely, Mr. Speaker's Train-bearer!
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to explain when he winds up the debate the basis on which the £2·7 million compensation has been arrived at. Over how long a period was this compensation to be calculated? In particular,


will he say what figure was taken as the value of a tot?
A tot of rum, as many of us in this House know, is equivalent to two doubles, and ashore would cost something like 10s. If only half the ratings in the Navy draw their tots, say, about 36,000 of them, then those sailors will feel that they are losing about £18,000 a day or ail million a year. Yet the Government are offering only £2½ million in compensation. This appears to be a rather good bargain for the Government, at the sailor's expense. May we have from the Under-Secretary the actuarial basis of the value accorded to a tot of rum?
I agree with the tribute which was paid by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford to the Royal Navy and to the comradeship of sailors. Could one see this comradeship better deployed than when sailors have been ashore and return up the gangway and are inspected by an officer? I myself have carried out this job on many occasions and I have often seen three sailors standing very close together for the benefit of the one in the middle file. I am bound to say that often ray step has accelerated a little as I have passed him. I have given him the benefit of the doubt and I do not think I have ever been let down.
Having said all this, I feel that there are, in fact, good reasons for abolishing the tot in today's modern Navy. A tot is very strong, two doubles of very strong rum. This is about a third of a tumbler of rum and damn good stuff at that. It is arguable that this is not the best diet on which to prepare to mend a radar set or to fly as aircrew in a helicopter or to operate a complicated gas turbine machinery in a modern frigate. Modern ships are much more covered in and ships' companies are much less exposed to the elements than they used to be either in the days of sail, or when they had to man A-gun on the fo'csle on a destroyer in an Atlantic gale.
There are very strong arguments for abolishing the issue of rum in shore establishments: in a shore establishment the problem is when to issue the tot. If it is issued at the traditional time of mid-day the junior ratings are impervious to instruction for the rest of the afternoon. If one gives out the issue at 4 o'clock they jump on their motor cycles

and think that the old machine is terrific and drive away straight under a bus on the sea front. Therefore, there are difficulties involved.
I add one personal view. Throughout the history of the issue of rum there have been a great many tragic cases of fine old petty officers or chief petty officers, torpedo boat coxwains, for example, who have lost their careers, their good conduct badges, their pensions due to some silly unwise pettifogging fiddling over a little bottle of rum for somebody's birthday. I have always been aghast at the strong penalties which had to be applied in such cases. I have seen some tragic situations.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: These tragic cases would not have arisen if there had been no rum.
In conclusion, I am glad that the Government have announced that chiefs and petty officers will be able to buy spirits on board. This is contained in the Admiralty announcement. Furthermore, the issue of beer in ships is the best innovation during my time in the Navy.
Having said this, the important thing for the public to gather from what we are saying is that the best career available for any young man, if he is good enough, is to join the Royal Navy of today, rum or no rum.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: It is not often that I have the opportunity to stretch my hand across the waters and to join with the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I agree with him that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) made a magnificent speech this evening. In congratulating him I know that I speak not only for myself, but for many who reside permanently or temporarily within my constituency.
It is a real pride and joy for any Member for Portsmouth, West in history to know that he represents the home and centre of the Royal Navy in this country.

Mr. Roebuck: What about the Plymouth area?

Mr. Judd: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford in drawing to the Minister's attention the grave consternation on the lower deck about this proposal. It may well be that the Minister is convinced that his decision is right. I urge him to recognise that he cannot rest simply on the self-satisfaction of the feeling that he is right. Communication is the essence of good leadership. He has a responsibility to make sure that the man on the lower deck appreciates and understands the arguments which have led the Government to endorse the decision of the Board of Admiralty.
From my own experience, and judging by conversations which I have recently had, I do not believe there are many men on the lower decks who reside in my constituency who even begin to see the justice of this decision. They see it as discriminatory, and the arguments which have been advanced smack of an ancient paternalism which is unbecoming to the Treasury Bench of the present Labour Government.
I make only one observation about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). He said that one of the difficulties was when to issue the tot in a shore station. It may be difficult to know when to issue it, but anyone who has served in the dismal surroundings of so many shore stations, and put up with the deprivations of the physical enviroment compared with being at sea, knows that, if ever there is a necessity for the tot, it is for the man serving in a shore station even more than in a ship at sea.
We are deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter so vigorously. He has our support, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have to work hard to convince us, and, beyond us, the men on the lower deck, that his decision is right.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. David Owen): The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. David Owen)rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for the wardroom will be intervening at 10.15 Mr. Iremonger.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Hon. Members have said that they hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us this and that and produce evidence to support this decision. For my part, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go back to the Admiralty Board and say that there has never been such a large attendance in an Adjournment debate, that this House will not accept the decision, and that the board will have to change its mind.
I have served in the lower deck and in the wardroom. I am sure that from both point of view this is not a good decision. I have probably more reason to fear the dangers of the tot than many other naval officers. I was officer of the watch during the middle watch in a small vessel which was the leading escort in a convoy in the middle of the war on New Year's Eve. I observed that I was on the right course by the gyro-compass. However, I noticed that the convoy was coming towards us instead of being astern. I never believed in the gyro-compass, but I always believed in the magnetic compass. On confirming my impression by the magnetic compass that we were going in the wrong direction, I sent for the rating in charge of the gyro compass, and he arrived on the bridge in an extremely genial mood.
This was in a small ship in which the rum is served neat. The only reason for watering down rum to make "grog" is that it cannot be kept. In small ships, where it is served neat, it can be kept. This rating was a Scotsman. On New Year's Eve, he took advantage of his store of rum, and very nearly sank us all and some of the convoy as well. Therefore I see the danger in the tradition of "Up Spirits", but, even so, I think that it is well worth it.
I can also see the force of the argument that, in a modern navy, in large ships—which are not ships at all but merely slightly unstable and disagreeable hotels—there is some virtue in not giving rum to ratings who, during the afternoon, have complicated duties to attend to involving the use of sophisticated machinery. All the same, from the point of view of the Royal Navy this is a bad move. The rum ration is more than the drink itself. It is more than a tradition. It is a ritual, and it is very


important for morale that rituals should be maintained. If rum is not issued to ratings, they cannot give "sippers" to their "oppos", and it will have a very bad effect on general morale and relationships between ratings on the lower deck.
I regret this. I think that the duty of a Minister responsible for the Royal Navy is to tell these people in the Admiralty that they cannot get away with it. He is a mar, who represents, through us, the feelings of the ratings in the lower deck. I can see that there are good arguments for the decision, but this is an occasion when the Minister should have said, "This is all very fine, but we will not wear it." He should have told the board that it could not have its way.
There will be much resentment in the lower deck and in the wardroom. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will go back and splice the main-brace with the Admiralty Board, or whatever may be appropriate, and say that, on reflection, having taken the mood of the House, he has decided that this will not do.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I am a little disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that you did not introduce me by my rank. You introduced the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) by his. For your information, I am Leading Aircraftman.
I am all for tradition: there is a good disciplinary reason for keeping tradition in the Armed Forces and in our national life. I was disappointed when the previous Government abandoned the title of First Lord of the Admiralty. No one knows what will come next. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will abolish port for Her Majesty's judges. If that happens, the whole nation will be sunk.
The House has had a great deal of fun about this matter, but there are serious aspects, and it would be a mistake if the debate were conducted in such a manner that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was able to escape in a cloud of humour.
I have seen nothing in the public statements which have been made about this decision to indicate any sound and positive reason for it.
The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) gave us a most revealing glimpse of history. I hope that it was more accurate than that which we had recently from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham told us that this decision had been in the pipeline for some time at the Admiralty and that at one time there was a Minister strong enough to resist this kind of nonsense. If so, it is a sad reflection on my hon. Friend, who represents a seafaring constituency. No wonder he has had to bring along the Minister of Defence for Administration who constantly reminds me of that character in Peter Simple, Alderman Ironside, of Sheffield City Council, to support him in this matter. Much support he will get from him.
I was not sure about the course being steered by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. He appeared to start out in the right direction, but later changed course and came back to support the Admiralty. His argument was that the provision of this tot of rum would make it dangerous for ratings in a service operational rôle. But this argument was answered previously by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham, who said that this ration is given when men come off duty, not before they go on duty.
No evidence has been adduced in the public statement about the harmful effect that this tot of rum is causing, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who has such a distinguished career as a boy sailor in the Navy.
One thing which has bedevilled the Services, even in modern times, is the rather preposterous class structure. This is not so evident in the Royal Air Force, where men and women tend to rise on merit. But that is not the case in the Navy.

Mr. William Hamling: We all find our own level.

Mr. Roebuck: As my hon. Friend says, we all find our own level. That is not so in the Navy.
What have we here? We have a system whereby an officer can drink a wide variety of spirits and a petty officer can drink a more limited variety of spirits. But what are the men on the


lower deck faced with?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Water."] Water, but also beer—and we all know where the beer comes from. We know that the brewers make large contributions to Conservative Party funds. I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether this is not some kind of plot.
The serious issue is: are we not, on this basis, going back to the old system that we had at the end of the war where we saw notices, so I am told, which said, "Officers and their ladies, N.C.O.s and their wives, other ranks and their women"? We now have a situation of officers and their spirits, N.C.O.s and their spirits, plus creme de menthe, or whatever it is that W.R.N.S. say, and other ranks and their beers. This will not do. This is not the kind of structure which hon. Members on this side of the House seek to see established in the Royal Navy.
I earnestly ask my hon. Friend to take note of the unanimous view on this side of the House and almost the whole of the Opposition, and to show those in the Royal Navy who have come to this decision that it is this House which runs the Services and that it does not want change and will not put up with it. I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw this nonsense and to give back to the men their tot of rum.

10.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): The whole House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has made a most amusing speech. But it has also been a speech of serious content on a serious issue, and I must treat it as such.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and it has sometimes been difficult to determine the courses that various hon. Members have steered.
I should like to say at the outset that I am only too well aware that the rum issue is a particular naval privilege of long standing and one which is cherished and enjoyed by a great many ratings. I could not hold my position too long without being aware of this. I am also a Plymouthian. I represent the Sutton Division of Plymouth, a constituency with a long and proud naval tradition, so I am well conscious of this matter.
I suggest, however, that certain facts must be faced. The rum issue is the equivalent of slightly more than four single whiskies—a fact which has tended to be glossed over in this debate. There is also an entitlement, introduced only since the war, to purchase a pint of beer a day on top of the rum issue. In this country, it is an offence to drive a car while one's blood alcohol exceeds 80 miligrammes per 100 mililitres of blood, and this level may be reached after four single whiskies or two and a half pints of beer. If, to an individual's naval tot, is added a proportion of another man's tot, which happens all too frequently, or, say, the two cans of beer which he is allowed, my medical advisers express positive misgivings about the results if that individual were faced with a test of his normal skill on which much might depend.
To the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), I can say that there is considerable medical evidence, and that a great deal of pressure has come from naval doctors on this issue. In a survey of patients admitted to the British Military Hospital in Singapore, comparing the Army and the Navy, the figures suggest that the Royal Navy has three times the rate of alcoholic casualties. Alcoholic casualties nearly always manifest themselves only over the age of 28. On this basis, it was estimated that there could not be fewer than 300 very heavy drinkers in the Fleet. Because this is in an older age group, it is obviously a higher percentage.
Hon. Members have been fair in admitting that the tasks of the naval rating have changed immensely over the years. It is by no means uncommon for junior ratings to hold responsible positions in the modern Navy, and to be required to maintain and operate extremely expensive and complex missile or fire control systems in our ships. This must be something which we consider when we realise that we are giving an entitlement to drink more than four single whiskies in the middle of the working day.
I suggest also that there is a great difference between a free issue of spirits, which must be drunk at the time of or shortly after the issue, and the right to buy spirits while off duty.
The unanimous advice of the Admiralty Board and, indeed, of practically every naval officer, both medical and non-medical, is that the issue of rum impairs the efficiency and is not compatible with the high standards of efficiency required now that the tasks in our ships are concerned with complex and often delicate machinery on the correct functioning of which many lives may depend. It is on this advice and other facts that the board decided to abolish the rum issue. I believe that the reaction to the decision shows that most people recognise that it is a sensible and timely one. I do not claim that it was or could have been a popular decision, but it is possible to exaggerate the feeling aroused.
We have heard of much anger and resentment at this decision. But there was sensible reporting of the decision in the Press and in subsequent editorial comment. My hon. Friend asked what Plymouth thought. The very influential Western Evening Herald, in Plymouth, supported the decision. The 15 letters which have been received in my Department or by me show that most people accept that this decision probably had to come. In my constituency, I have no wish to go down in history with Admiral Vernon, who watered down the rum, or the Secretary of the U.S. Navy, Josephus Daniels, who made the U.S. navy "dry". I am surprised that some people have almost been advocating the cause of a "dry" Navy.
I am glad that hon. Members have accepted that this decision was not an economy measure. Quite the reverse. The cash value of the savings which we shall make, £2·7 million, will all be paid over to the Sailors' Fund, which should do a great deal to make life in the Navy pleasanter specifically for those men and their dependants who are losing the rum ration.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked how this was calculated. The amount paid over was obtained on a discounted cash flow calculation, involving the discounting of the annual saving at an agreed rate. This results in a figure representing the cash value now of the savings which will be realised in future. Most people who have considered this think that it is a generous supplement. It is well known, for instance, that in the Navy they have not got the reserves

which can be used for this purpose which the other two Services have.
It is important for the House to bear in mind the extent of the problem. Junior ratings, the men primarily affected—we often hear the expression "the lower deck", but that usually means junior and senior ratings—form 57 per cent. of the Fleet. Of these, less than 30 per cent. in practice take the rum ration either because some of them are under 20 and not eligible, some are living out on shore and some do not like rum. In practice, entitlement of ratings to purchase drinks of any kind applies only to those serving afloat—about four in 10 of the percentage I mentioned. While serving in shore establishments anyone is entitled, officers and men, to buy drink in the mess or the N.A.A.F.I. club besides of course being able to use the facilities of the town in which they are living when they are off duty.
My hon. Friend's main criticism as I understand it is the perpetuation of a distinction between officers and men. I think he is the first to recognise that the measures we have announced are in fact a significant step toward easing the distinction between officers and men. We are in fact easing the regulations for the purchase of spirits to allow men of lower rank than at present to buy them. That is what the new rules mean. Until now, chiefs and petty officers, senior and responsible men upon whom the Navy relies, have not been allowed to buy or drink whisky, gin or vodka on board ship. Many representations have been received to relax the regulations. The only spirit they have been allowed is rum.
From the date of the abolition of the issue this will change and these men will be able to purchase and choose the spirit that they drink. The criticism is that this decision while welcome does not go far enough for it will still result in junior ratings, those below the rank of petty officer, being unable to drink spirits while on board ship. This is quite true but it must be remembered that roughly 40 per cent. of the junior ratings' mess will be under the age of 20 at any one time and not eligible for rum and that a man may, if he is exceptional, be a petty officer by the time he is 22 and that considerable proportions are being


promoted petty officers by the time they are 27. I ask the House to remember that a considerable proportion are under 18.
Even so the junior ratings have not been neglected. The amount of beer they are allowed to purchase is to be increased by 50 per cent. This is not such a paltry allowance as has been made out. It is worth pointing out that because petty officers and chief petty officers will be able to buy spirits the priority in respect of the purchase of beer will be given to the ration available for the junior ratings.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That has always been the case.

Dr. Owen: That is true, but it will be always maintained.
The decision to increase the ration of beer to junior ratings was not taken without considering the possibility of allowing them also to buy spirits. I should like the House to look at the many problems, apart from the advisability of making spirits available in messes with such a high proportion of young men. The prime consideration is the limited accommodation available. We have recently decided to increase the amount of accommodation per man—something to which I attach immense importance—but even after this has taken place and it can be done only as new ships are built—the amount of space available will still be severely restricted.
Thus, on very many ships there is nowhere where spirits can reasonably be sold in such a manner as to prevent abuse of the law of the land remembering that a high percentage are under 18 without either taking an excessive amount of time—a period of many hours was calculated—or conducting the sales in a thoroughly difficult atmosphere, for example in the cramped deck space of a frigate or submarine and in a variety of small messes scattered throughout the ship.
I hope my hon. Friend will take this assurance from me that there is no question of adopting moral attitudes over this. The arguments which I have espoused have scrupulously kept aside from that. I am certainly not persuaded that there is any class difference in drinking habits, although the disciplinary

sanctions against an officer found drunk on duty are much stiffer than those for ratings.
My hon. Friend quoted the most recent figures of drunkenness which I gave him. I do not wish to draw too much from them, but it is clear from the figures that there is a much higher incidence of drunkenness among ratings than among officers. in 1968, there were 3,215 offences recorded in respect of ratings, or 5 per cent., and in that same year only one officer was court-martialled.
I readily accept that few of these offences take place on duty, and I wish that I was in a position to give my hon. Friend the accurate breakdown of statistics for which he asks. In fact, returns of this kind have only recently been instituted in the fleet, and it has been difficult to obtain the figures.
It is not true that there is no effective limitation on the amount of drink which an officer may consume. The captain of every ship is expected to examine his officers' wine bills at regular intervals and to deal with those officers, particularly younger ones, whose bills show signs of excessive drinking. As a further check, when his ship is inspected he is required to provide the inspecting officer with evidence that he has done so.
As a further check, in the case of petty officers and chief officers we are giving the captain similar powers. The stocks held in the mess at any one time are to be equal to an average consumption of four days' supply at three measures a head. There is, thus, no great distinction here, and certainly there is no case to support the charge of discrimination against these men.
Even these rules are not fixed and immutable for all time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is putting a persuasive case. Will he give an undertaking that he will place in the Library the sources and results of the investigations which he says have been carried out, so that, by an examination of the facts, we may give careful consideration to the case which he puts?

Dr. Owen: I can give my hon. Friend the references. The medical study which I cited has already been published. I shall look into this, anyhow.
These rules are not fixed and immutable for all time. We shall review their operation and, if they cause difficulties, or if further relaxation is practicable, we shall institute the necessary changes. We keep a constant eye on the question of beer and the progress made by the brewers in their work on concentrated or dehydrated beer. If they can find an acceptable answer, it will ease our stowage problems. We shall then be able to re-examine the size of the beer ration.
It is appropriate, I think, to make another point. The tenor of much of the criticism is such as to suggest that some people visualise the Navy as divided by class—this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck)—as though the officers are all "middle class" and ratings are "lower class". Nothing could be further from the truth in the Navy of today. Over 25 per cent. of the officers started their career as ratings, a far higher percentage, incidentally, than in either of the other two Services.
I noted that my hon. Friend referred to the Royal Air Force. Far from being a bastion of privilege, the Navy actively encourages men to aspire to and obtain a commission. There is a special scheme to enable young men of ability to attain the educational qualifications which they need to succeed, and many

of these "Upper Yardsmen" now occupy important positions. Moreover, entry to the General List and other branches is in no way limited. It is open to any boy from any school or social class who can qualify. All of us who have over the years had any association with the Service are only too well aware of that.
I ask the House to remember that we are steadily forging a new modern Navy. The new ships are now a reality—nuclear fleet submarines, the new type 42 destroyer, new frigates—all with modern sophisticated equipment. These are not just paper designs, but are actively going down the slipways and joining the modern Navy. In the words of the present First Sea Lord, this is an "instant-response" Navy.
I am satisfied that the daily issue of rum is neither necessary nor appropriate, and that this decision, though unpopular, had to be taken at this time. There are always arguments for postponing unpopular decisions. There are always those who will argue that Ministers should avoid making unpopular decisions. But, if a Minister believes that a decision is right, he should take it, and this is why the Admiralty Board unanimously made this decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.